Subscribe via RSS Feed

Principles For Me, But Not For Thee

[ 0 ] June 19, 2007 |

Mitt Romney edition.

"Occultic Overtones"

[ 0 ] June 19, 2007 |

This is awesome…

Via Kingdaddy.

Wait, Condoms are for Sex?

[ 0 ] June 19, 2007 |

Sigh. Some days I can only laugh at how ridiculous this country can be.

Case in point: Yesterday, Fox and CBS announced that they would not be airing a new Trojan condom commercial. Why? Well, because the ad is about sex. Huh?

Here’s the deal: Trojan’s new ad campaign — Evolve — features the tagline: “evolve. Use a condom every time.” The website proclaims: “America is not a sexually healthy nation.” The first TV commercial (the one that CBS and FOX rejected) features a beautiful blond woman in a bar (duh). She keeps getting picked up by pigs (actual, behooved members of the porcine family), who turn magically into handsome young men upon buying a condom in the bathroom (watch it here). Sounds strange but overall pretty tame, right?

But not to FOX, which released a statement that included this gem (via Feministing): “contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy.” Isn’t preventing pregnancy health-related? And what the hell is so bad about advertising pregnancy prevention? Especially in a country where about 50% of pregnancies are unintended? And where unintended pregnancies lead to one of the highest abortion rates in the west? Oh, and where we use sex to sell everything from perfume to cars to televisions. Not to mention erectile dysfunction drugs. But not condoms. Heaven forbid.

It’s nonsensical. And when compared to the contraception ads that air in Catholic countries like some in South America, it’s just plain old ridiculous.

Remember, in the U.S., sex only sells when you’re selling something that has nothing to do with sex.

Want to do something about this? Send a letter to CBS chief Les Moonves and Fox President Peter Ligouri here.

Stop Stealing My Excuses!

[ 0 ] June 19, 2007 |

Friend of Scott: Hmm, maybe a movie this weekend. What’s your cell #?

SL: I don’t have one.

FOS: What? Are you blowing me off?

SL: No! I really don’t have one.

FOS: What a pain in the ass! Let me guess — you’re a bitter crank who takes a certain perverse pleasure in not having a cell phone, even if it makes spontaneous organizing impossible.

SL: Er, no. I have very sound, principled reasons for not having one, which I would be happy to elaborate. Oh, look at the time — I think Yankeeography: Andy Stankiewicz comes on in an hour, I’d hate to miss that!

FOS: Don’t change the subject! Anyway, what about the i-Phone? Isn’t that like the coolest thing ever?

SL: I guess. But isn’t the battery life, like, 30 seconds? You’d be trying to call me to say that, on second thought, you’ll take a pass on the “Outtakes From the Films of Robert Bresson” festival, and it would be dead! I don’t think that solves anything!

FOS: Well, that was the initial report. But it turns out that the battery life will permit 8 hours of talking and 6 hours on the intarweb. So you have to get one!

SL: I, er, but don’t they, ah, cause brain cancer or something? Hey, look, someone pushing a baby carriage! Who would have thought you’d see that in Park Slope?


But Hating Youself is Healthy

[ 0 ] June 18, 2007 |

Vanessa provides yet another example of the countless benefits derived from stigmatizing the weight of young women, which is about health, not aesthetics, oh yeah:

…a new trend has been developing among young diabetic girls who are skipping or reducing their insulin injections as a means of losing weight.

“Diabulimia” is apparently on the rise, and is extremely dangerous not only obviously because of the severe weight loss often involved with having an eating disorder, but the risks of a decrease in insulin, including blindness, damage to the kidneys and limbs, and could eventually result in a coma and/or death.

I hope this particular pathology will be limited, but the prevalence of anorexia in itself enough to dismiss claims that stigmatizing weight is about health.

The Problem With Marty

[ 0 ] June 18, 2007 |

Alterman is on the case:

It is a sad but true fact of American political life that liberals rarely exercise so much influence as when they happen to be endorsing conservative causes, and this temptation has proven consistently irresistible to Peretz and his magazine. TNR under Peretz has been a vehicle that proved extremely helpful to Ronald Reagan’s wars in Central America and George Bush’s war in Iraq. It provided seminal service to Newt Gingrich’s and William Kristol’s efforts to kill the Clinton plan for universal health care and offered intellectual legitimacy to Charles Murray’s efforts to portray black people as intellectually inferior to whites. As for liberal causes, however … well, not so much.

And in addition to this, there’s the stable of legal writers who think we need to burn Roe in order to save reproductive freedom for affluent urban women or something.

And Now for Something Completely Different…

[ 0 ] June 18, 2007 |

Welp. After that very kind introduction (though now I may never drink the water ’round these parts), here I am. As Scott mentioned, I’m a rising 3L at an NYC law school. I write about feminism, politics, pop culture (less often), and criminal justice. I have been blogging over at A Bird and a Bottle for just shy of a year. Some of you may recognize me from my guest posting stints here at LGM. But now I’m here to stay. For the next few weeks, I’ll be posting about once a day. After that, I hope to pick up the pace a bit.

So anyway, I better actually blog about something here. I figured for my first post, I’d write about something that doesn’t get a lot of coverage here. Something that will reveal my quirky perspective. Abortion rights. Er….Ok, so maybe that’s a topic familiar to you all. But what would you think if you were driving down the highway (the West Side Highway for you New Yorkers) and you saw this:

I took this photo yesterday (in a somewhat dangerous driving and shooting maneuver). It’s an ad for Manhattan Mini Storage, the local purveyor of storage spaces that has run a series of cheeky ads on subways and billboards around the city.

After getting over my shock at seeing this hanging over the highway and then after pumping my fists in excitement that a company would choose to advertise its product in this way, I started thinking. Obviously, the company is going for the young, progressive demographic. It’s smart business because that’s a lot of NYC residents. And if anyone has ever seen a NYC closet, you know that there’s a lot of truth to both sides of this ad. But there’s more. What about that dang coat hanger? The coat hanger, because it so powerfully evokes botched back alley abortions, was – as most of you probably know – the symbol of the first wave reproductive justice activists (really, the second wave of feminism). It’s been shunned since then, in part because it seemed out of date and in part because of the problems it presented in terms of framing the abortion debate. Do we really want to be dragging that darn coat hanger back into the thick of this debate? Here, of course, the double entendre is clear. The coat hanger is resurrected not as a symbol of back alley abortions but as a tongue-in-cheek (and, I think, well-meaning) nod to today’s bad politics. And just as a closet is sometimes (often) very small, a hanger is sometimes just a hanger.

New Blood

[ 0 ] June 18, 2007 |

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

“Aw, if they hire a woman we won’t be able to spit on the floor.”
“And we can’t take off our pants when it gets real hot.”
“And we won’t be able to pee in the drinking fountain…Er, I mean, not… you know, if we wanted to… not that I ever did…”

It was recently brought to our attention by the Department of Justice that Lawyers, Guns, and Money does not employ a single woman. We were congratulated and offered a Medal of Freedom and free attendance at a Federalist Society banquet featuring Sam Alito and Bob Bork. Despite the temptation, the staff at L, G & M decided that it’s about time to we hired a woman, and some of this blog’s most fervent admirers have complained about the lack of lawyers as well. To address all of the first problem and large parts of the second, we’re pleased to announce that our recent guest blogger Bean (of A Bird and a Bottle) will be joining us full time. Bean has just finished 2L at an Elite New York Law School. Some of her interests–in feminism, constitutional law, and pop culture, for example–will be familiar. And she will also bring added depth and expertise to issues like The War on (Some Classes of People Who Use Some) Drugs and criminal justice, which we don’t cover as much as I would like, as well as some interests of her own. And most importantly (although I swear I didn’t know this until after she got the gig), she’s a hockey fan. Welcome her to our community!

Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimum Sentences

[ 0 ] June 17, 2007 |

Marcy Wheeler points us to this story about the administration’s call for mandatory minimum sentences in light of a Supreme Court ruling that federal sentencing guidelines are merely advisory. (This will be tested in an upcoming Supreme Court case where a judge’s decision to ignore a the minimum sentence suggested in a drug case was overruled on appeal.)

Where drug cases are concerned, I think it’s important to keep a couple issues distinct. Restricting judicial discretion, per se, is not necessarily a bad thing. Sentencing discretion given to judges must balance its good points (the ability for careful consideration of particularized circumstances) with the bad points (the potential for arbitrary justice in which the severity of sentences turns not on case facts but on the luck of the docket and the identity and status of the defendant.) For this reason, it’s dangerous to conflate drug law reform and increased judicial discretion. Allowing judges to refuse to apply draconian minimum sentences for drug possession is, I suppose, better than requiring them in all cases, but it’s not a very effective remedy for the underlying injustice. The defendants lucky enough to get this consideration are more likely than not to have better-than-typical lawyers able to negotiate better deals, and people with these lawyers are likely to be wealthier and whiter than the typical person convicted on drug charges. The fundamental problem with harsh mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession isn’t that they restrict judicial discretion, it’s that they’re bad laws, period, accomplishing not much of anything worthwhile at immense expense. Giving a few lucky people a nearly random pass doesn’t really address the underlying problem.

Conservertarianism, Ladies And Gentlemen!

[ 0 ] June 17, 2007 |

Shorter Ace O. Spades, Heterosexual, as linked by nonpartisan libertarian Glenn Reynolds: “Gay men aren’t actually men.”

Template Modifications

[ 0 ] June 17, 2007 |

I’m going to be fiddling with and experimenting on the LGM template for the next couple of hours. Hopefully, actual downtime will be brief.

…got farther that time. Progress!!!

…okay, so still making modifications, but got the critical elements together. Going to re-add the blogroll, for example. Now would be a good time to report any serious problems with functionality.

…has anyone noticed any change, positive or negative, in download time?

Costs and Lifestyle

[ 0 ] June 17, 2007 |

At the risk of commenting on something that I have no business commenting on, I think Mona gives Mark Steyn too much credit here:

Mark Steyn actually has something insightful to say about the inherent risks of any nationalized, single payer health care scheme: namely, all taxpayers and the state then develop a stake in ones personal choices, and that becomes a potent reason to prohibit and regulate everything from smoking, to trans-fats to a sedentary lifestyle. Or, as he points out, gay sex. (“Promiscuous” het sex, of course, also carries health consequences which the state could acquire an interest in curbing.)

Okay, but two objections:

  1. There have already been numerous prohibitions on various lifestyle choices even without single payer health care; I suppose that single payer could give someone trying to pass a sodomy law an extra rhetorical wedge, but it doesn’t strike me as being terribly consequential.
  2. There are, as Mona says, 46 million uninsured in the US, but they aren’t uninsured in the sense that they can be regularly refused treatment in acute life threatening situations. As Ezra et al have pointed out regularly, the United States doesn’t actually have a private system of health care; it has a Frankenstein’s monster of health care, an amalgamation of many of the worst aspects of both a public and a private system. I doubt very much that a single payer system would introduce a new set of attacks on lifestyle choices that can’t already be made with the Medicaid/Medicare system.

Then again, it’s possible (probable?) that I just don’t know anything useful about health care, and perhaps a bit less possible that Mark Steyn actually does have something useful to say.

  • Switch to our mobile site