Thursday, November 6, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
What's He Doing?
Bob Herbert's NYT column today nails it on the head: What is our beloved Barack Obama doing? Why is he abandoning not only the progressive principles which ignited his initial support, but also the base that carried him to the nomination?
As Herbert writes, "Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most... This is why so many of Senator Obama’s strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer. One issue or another might not have made much difference... But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash. So there he was in Zanesville, Ohio, pandering to evangelicals by promising not just to maintain the Bush program of investing taxpayer dollars in religious-based initiatives, but to expand it. Separation of church and state? Forget about it. And there he was, in the midst of an election campaign in which the makeup of the Supreme Court is as important as it has ever been, agreeing with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas that the death penalty could be imposed for crimes other than murder... “What’s he doing?” is the most common question heard recently from Obama supporters."
Monday, July 7, 2008
I Get It
Symphony Space, on 95th and Broadway, is having a summer celebration of the films of Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn: Feisty and Fabulous. Each weekend offers a great double feature.Last night, I saw 2 Hepburn flics- Pat and Mike, and Adam's Rib. Ahead of her time? Katharine Hepburn is still ahead of her time, 55 years later! I've seen Hepburn in movies before, and Spencer Tracy, too. But I didn't get it until last night. What it is, I don't know. But whatever it is, I finally got it.
If you're in NY, it's worth your while. And cheap, too-- $11 for 2 movies.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
One For The Everglades
A victory for the planet, a victory for us all!
Who knows which forces were behind this, but good for you, Gov. Crist!
Read about it in today's NYT.
Who knows which forces were behind this, but good for you, Gov. Crist!
Read about it in today's NYT.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Be Scared. Be Very, Very Scared.
Lynne Spears must be so proud! She's a grandmother for the third time. Mazel Tov!
White Picket Fences
An interesting dilemma to consider on this fine Thursday morning.
Slate has written an article about how homosexuals have fought to prove their orientation was not a choice, and science has corroborated their claims. But now... well, they said it better than I can. Here's a chunk:
A new study, published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, hints at what's coming. Previous gay-brain studies focused on structures or responses that might have been shaped by social interactions. To screen out social factors, authors of the new study relied on brain scans rather than behavioral responses, and they targeted structures known to form during or shortly after gestation...
The sample consisted of 25 straight men, 25 straight women, 20 gay men, and 20 lesbians. In overall symmetry and amygdala activity, the brains of gay men resembled the brains of straight women, whereas the brains of lesbians resembled the brains of straight men... The broader implication, one expert argues, is that "in gay men, the brain is feminized."
Are the differences genetic? Not likely. "As to the genetic factors, the current view is that they may play a role in male homosexuality, but they seem to be insignificant for female homosexuality," the authors conclude. "Genetic factors, therefore, appear less probable as the major common denominator for all group differences observed here."
So, what's the common factor? If the study's design rules out learned influences, and if the results in women rule out genetics, that leaves what the authors call "hormonal influences" or noncognitive differences in the infant environment. According to the Guardian, the same research team has "begun another study to investigate brain symmetry in newborn babies, to see if it can be used to predict their future sexual orientation." If it can, that will scratch postnatal factors off the list, and the search will narrow to hormones in the womb. Already, the authors point to evidence that homosexuality may be caused by "under-exposure to prenatal androgens" in males and "over-exposure" in females.
Where science leads, technology follows. Two years ago, scientists in Oregon reported an attempt to "interfere with defeminization of adult sexual partner preferences" in sheep. Their method, as they described it, was to alter hormonal inputs in pregnant ewes "during the period of gestation when the sheep brain is maximally sensitive to the behavior-modifying effects of exogenous testosterone." When the attempt failed, they concluded that the dosage should be increased.
Would hormonal intervention work in humans? Should we try it? Some thinkers are intrigued. Last year, the Rev. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote: "If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use." Mohler told the Associated Press that morally, this would be no different from curing fetal blindness or any other "medical problem." The Rev. Joseph Fessio, editor of the press that publishes the pope's work, agreed: "Same-sex activity is considered disordered. If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb … that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."
If the idea of chemically suppressing homosexuality in the womb horrifies you, I have bad news: You won't be in the room when it happens. Parents control medical decisions, and surveys indicate that the vast majority of them would be upset to learn that their child was gay. Already, millions are screening embryos and fetuses to eliminate those of the "wrong" sex. Do you think they won't screen for the "wrong" sexual orientation, too?"
Let's digest this, let's be very honest, and very frank.
I was raised by a mother who told us that if she had become pregnant with a seriously disabled child, she would probably have aborted it. I remember discussing the issue when a Catholic family friend refused tests during her pregnancy to check for such "defects" because abortion was out of the question; she was going to have the baby God gave to her.
A mother has every right to determine that she doesn't want to have a child that is disabled, mentally retarded, etc. I am sure there are people who think I'm rather disgusting for holding those views, and they may not be wrong, but I firmly believe in a woman's right to determine the fate of her body and the fate of any child she chooses to bring into this world.
Therefore, I have to accept that some women view homosexuality as an illness, a disease, a disability, and if they can conduct tests to determine the probable sexual orientation of a fetus, and a woman doesn't want to bring that child into the world, she should have that right.
Things get tricky, though, when we start to futz with the baby itself. I've certainly heard of in vitro surgeries performed on fetuses still in the womb, to correct a weak heart, a spinal issue, etc. But how are we to feel about correcting or choosing other characteristics, like gender, sexual orientation?
I think it's safe to say every good parent hopes their child has a life with the fewest obstacles and hardships in their path, and despite great gains for equality, being gay is certainly not something a parent wishes on his child... so should they be able to wish it away?
Should we be able to make sure Billy is good at baseball, so he won't be picked last in gym class? Or good at standardized tests, so he succeeds on his SAT's? Or attractive, so he isn't rejected? Or that he won't have bad acne? Or that he won't have diabetes? Or prostate cancer?
It's really tough to try and parse out what choices are kind and protective, and what choices are just, well, creepy. Designer babies? Is this the future? I mean, yes, it's the future, but how far is too far?
Ultimately, each parent must set her own limits, and people who view homosexuality as a disability will be able to alter their children (for the better). I don't have the ability to bring a child into the world, I don't have to carry it in my womb for nine months, so I don't feel comfortable imposing my own views when I don't have to live with the consequences.
But I offer some thoughts-- not spouted with vitriol-- merely presented for a continued dialogue on this most important topic.
If there's a biological/sociological function gay people fill, how will our society suffer if we weed out our gay brethren? There was an article in New York magazine a year or so ago explaining how in many native cultures with big families, gay sons are often born last, and often help their sisters take care of their children while tending to their elderly parents.
For an already small and marginalized culture, if we decrease the number of gay children, how will that impact the gay kids whose parents didn't alter them? What will their lives be like? They didn't chose to be gay, but their parents chose to keep them that way. What will that mean, for them, and for all of us, if some of our parents made us "perfect" and some of our parents knowingly kept us imperfect?
What would our bookshelves look like, our runways, our theatres, our galleries, our piano scores, without the product of gay artists?
And perhaps most depressing, consider the terribly interesting people we will never get to know because their parents were trying to protect them from a tougher life.
Tough is good. It makes us stronger.
Our greatest selves emerge from the battles that test our limits and nearly break us, but don't.
Remove those fighters from the fight, humanity loses a bit of its luster.
Slate has written an article about how homosexuals have fought to prove their orientation was not a choice, and science has corroborated their claims. But now... well, they said it better than I can. Here's a chunk:
A new study, published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, hints at what's coming. Previous gay-brain studies focused on structures or responses that might have been shaped by social interactions. To screen out social factors, authors of the new study relied on brain scans rather than behavioral responses, and they targeted structures known to form during or shortly after gestation...
The sample consisted of 25 straight men, 25 straight women, 20 gay men, and 20 lesbians. In overall symmetry and amygdala activity, the brains of gay men resembled the brains of straight women, whereas the brains of lesbians resembled the brains of straight men... The broader implication, one expert argues, is that "in gay men, the brain is feminized."
Are the differences genetic? Not likely. "As to the genetic factors, the current view is that they may play a role in male homosexuality, but they seem to be insignificant for female homosexuality," the authors conclude. "Genetic factors, therefore, appear less probable as the major common denominator for all group differences observed here."
So, what's the common factor? If the study's design rules out learned influences, and if the results in women rule out genetics, that leaves what the authors call "hormonal influences" or noncognitive differences in the infant environment. According to the Guardian, the same research team has "begun another study to investigate brain symmetry in newborn babies, to see if it can be used to predict their future sexual orientation." If it can, that will scratch postnatal factors off the list, and the search will narrow to hormones in the womb. Already, the authors point to evidence that homosexuality may be caused by "under-exposure to prenatal androgens" in males and "over-exposure" in females.
Where science leads, technology follows. Two years ago, scientists in Oregon reported an attempt to "interfere with defeminization of adult sexual partner preferences" in sheep. Their method, as they described it, was to alter hormonal inputs in pregnant ewes "during the period of gestation when the sheep brain is maximally sensitive to the behavior-modifying effects of exogenous testosterone." When the attempt failed, they concluded that the dosage should be increased.
Would hormonal intervention work in humans? Should we try it? Some thinkers are intrigued. Last year, the Rev. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote: "If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use." Mohler told the Associated Press that morally, this would be no different from curing fetal blindness or any other "medical problem." The Rev. Joseph Fessio, editor of the press that publishes the pope's work, agreed: "Same-sex activity is considered disordered. If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb … that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."
If the idea of chemically suppressing homosexuality in the womb horrifies you, I have bad news: You won't be in the room when it happens. Parents control medical decisions, and surveys indicate that the vast majority of them would be upset to learn that their child was gay. Already, millions are screening embryos and fetuses to eliminate those of the "wrong" sex. Do you think they won't screen for the "wrong" sexual orientation, too?"
Let's digest this, let's be very honest, and very frank.
I was raised by a mother who told us that if she had become pregnant with a seriously disabled child, she would probably have aborted it. I remember discussing the issue when a Catholic family friend refused tests during her pregnancy to check for such "defects" because abortion was out of the question; she was going to have the baby God gave to her.
A mother has every right to determine that she doesn't want to have a child that is disabled, mentally retarded, etc. I am sure there are people who think I'm rather disgusting for holding those views, and they may not be wrong, but I firmly believe in a woman's right to determine the fate of her body and the fate of any child she chooses to bring into this world.
Therefore, I have to accept that some women view homosexuality as an illness, a disease, a disability, and if they can conduct tests to determine the probable sexual orientation of a fetus, and a woman doesn't want to bring that child into the world, she should have that right.
Things get tricky, though, when we start to futz with the baby itself. I've certainly heard of in vitro surgeries performed on fetuses still in the womb, to correct a weak heart, a spinal issue, etc. But how are we to feel about correcting or choosing other characteristics, like gender, sexual orientation?
I think it's safe to say every good parent hopes their child has a life with the fewest obstacles and hardships in their path, and despite great gains for equality, being gay is certainly not something a parent wishes on his child... so should they be able to wish it away?
Should we be able to make sure Billy is good at baseball, so he won't be picked last in gym class? Or good at standardized tests, so he succeeds on his SAT's? Or attractive, so he isn't rejected? Or that he won't have bad acne? Or that he won't have diabetes? Or prostate cancer?
It's really tough to try and parse out what choices are kind and protective, and what choices are just, well, creepy. Designer babies? Is this the future? I mean, yes, it's the future, but how far is too far?
Ultimately, each parent must set her own limits, and people who view homosexuality as a disability will be able to alter their children (for the better). I don't have the ability to bring a child into the world, I don't have to carry it in my womb for nine months, so I don't feel comfortable imposing my own views when I don't have to live with the consequences.
But I offer some thoughts-- not spouted with vitriol-- merely presented for a continued dialogue on this most important topic.
If there's a biological/sociological function gay people fill, how will our society suffer if we weed out our gay brethren? There was an article in New York magazine a year or so ago explaining how in many native cultures with big families, gay sons are often born last, and often help their sisters take care of their children while tending to their elderly parents.
For an already small and marginalized culture, if we decrease the number of gay children, how will that impact the gay kids whose parents didn't alter them? What will their lives be like? They didn't chose to be gay, but their parents chose to keep them that way. What will that mean, for them, and for all of us, if some of our parents made us "perfect" and some of our parents knowingly kept us imperfect?
What would our bookshelves look like, our runways, our theatres, our galleries, our piano scores, without the product of gay artists?
And perhaps most depressing, consider the terribly interesting people we will never get to know because their parents were trying to protect them from a tougher life.
Tough is good. It makes us stronger.
Our greatest selves emerge from the battles that test our limits and nearly break us, but don't.
Remove those fighters from the fight, humanity loses a bit of its luster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)