Month: June 2013

Barack won’t go there; Sash and Malia apparently tread very gently; but a self-described “old abrasive lesbian” did, heckling her at a private DNC gathering – and kinda regretted it:

“I think she was upset by the interruption, no doubt,” Sturtz said. “But I really didn’t feel like there was a lot of anger or felt like I was in danger at all. Even though she was pretty — I would like to say assertive — but obviously it was pretty aggressive.” …

“She cut me off immediately and leaned over podium, sort of her put her big hand towards me and said something to the effect of ‘You don’t do that to me’ or ‘I don’t do that,’” Sturtz said. “Then I made a comment that I’m interested in making sure that we have employment protections, and I’m not going to be quiet any longer.”

Sturtz said things became even more testy as Michelle Obama left the podium to talk to the activist face to face. “She came down from the podium and got into my face — probably within three inches of my face,” Sturtz said. “She basically took the microphone down, and she said to me, ‘I don’t do this, and if you want the microphone, it’s either I have the microphone or you have the microphone. I said, ‘I’ll take the microphone.’ And she said, ‘If you take the microphone, then I’m leaving.’”

Ms Sturtz was protesting for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (see correction here), something over which Michelle Obama has precisely zero control, and that the Congress has to pass, and, despite this being the top priority for Big Gay Inc. for thirty years, somehow hasn’t. Quite how this protest in a private home was supposed to accomplish anything is somewhat beyond me, but sometimes an old abrasive lesbian’s gotta do what an old abrasive lesbian’s gotta do. But she picked the wrong woman.

The audio here doesn’t exactly sound very dramatic, but watch the right-wing jump all over this. Meanwhile, there is a genuine First Lady issue that Dan Drezner notes – a conflict between public diplomacy and family life:

In the grand scheme of things, the relationship between Michelle Obama and Peng Liyuan doesn’t matter. That said, the major theme in all of Tom Donilon’s leaks the press coverage has been that this summit is about Obama and Xi trying to forge a good personal rapport so as to better define the bilateral relationship. Furthermore, for the Chinese, this relationship is a lot about prestige. Even small gestures that acknowledge the importance of China in the eyes of the United States can matter. This is just smart diplomacy.

Michelle Obama not attending the summit is a diplomatic own-goal that could easily have been avoided.

I agree that Michelle should go to the summit, if only for necessary optics. What Dan does not account for is the First Lady’s relentless dedication to her children. It’s their last week of school this year. And she has been adamant for five years that their needs take first place. And don’t try to get between her and her daughters. You’ll get the same treatment as Ms Sturtz.

(Photo: First lady Michelle Obama hugs a women while she and her husband U.S. President Barack Obama (R), visit section 60 at Arlington Cemetery, May 27, 2013 in Arlington, Virginia. For Memorial Day President Obama layed a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns, paying tribute to military veterans past and present who have served and sacrificed their lives for their country. By Mark Wilson/Getty Images.)

Alexia Tsotsis encourages us to give up the “Sisyphean” task of clearing our inboxes:

If you’re like most people in information technology, you could spend 16 hours of your day replying to email without even touching anything else. You could achieve the ludicrous construction of Inbox Zero, and still, the next morning, wake up to Inbox 276. It’s overwhelming, and absurd, but for those of us who rely on that number to feel confident or useful, we start leak emailing. Answering an email in a taxi, or right before a meal or, the worst, after sex. You become the person whose phone is more alluring than other people, the person who’d rather have a digital conversation than a regular one. …

The revolt required in this case, before you spend six hours or more of your day in email, is to train people to not expect an answer. And to be okay with calling or finding some other method to get what you need if you don’t get a response. Otherwise you’re the guy sending an email from the toilet.

Even after sex? There’s nowt so queer as folk. I’ve trained almost all my friends to expect nothing. Somehow, they’ve adjusted.

Jason Lyall reads into the recent attack on the International Committee of the Red Cross’ (ICRC) headquarters in Afghanistan:

[I]n the words of Kate Clark, the attack has “crossed a red line” in the war, for the ICRC occupies a unique position as the most respected NGO in Afghanistan — including by the Taliban itself. Relying exclusively on its reputation for neutrality for protection, the ICRC monitors compliance by all sides with the laws of war; arranges for the return of war dead to their homes for burial; conducts site visits of prisons; and provides medical assistance to civilians and combatants regardless of their allegiance. Wednesday’s attack represents the first time that its offices have been targeted since the ICRC first arrived in Afghanistan in 1987. There’s little question that this attack was deliberate rather than accidental. …

[W]hile new facts will undoubtedly come to light, the 29 May attack against the ICRC may foreshadow the changing nature of war over the coming year in Afghanistan. If the ICRC attack is any guide, we are likely to witness a continued shift away from insurgent violence against dwindling foreign forces and toward a deliberate targeting of aid organizations and government ministries in high-profile attacks. These attacks, in conjunction with efforts to destroy or subvert Afghan security forces, will place international organizations and NGOs in an increasingly tight bind: continue programming and suffer losses, or head for the exit?

(Photo: An Afghan policeman stands guard beside the burnt out wreckage of vehicles of the International Red Cross after an attack in Jalalabad on May 30, 2013. Militants launched a two-hour suicide and gun attack on a Red Cross office in the city, killing one guard, officials said. The assault was the latest in a series of high profile, co-ordinated attacks as insurgents pile pressure on the US-backed government ahead of the withdrawal of 100,000 NATO combat troops by the end of next year. By Noorullah Shirzada/AFP/Getty Images)

Charles Kenny extols the benefits of handing out cash to the deeply impoverished:

[Columbia University’s Chris] Blattman and colleagues looked at a program that gave $150 cash grants to 1,800 of the very poorest women in northern Uganda. Most began some sort of retail operation to supplement their income, and within a year their monthly earnings had doubled and cash savings tripled. The impact was pretty much the same whether or not participants received mentoring; business training added some value, but handing over the money it cost to provide would have added more.

Most cash-transfer programs do impose conditions—like requiring kids to go to school or get vaccinated, which does improve school attendance and vaccination rates considerably. But Blattman’s research suggests conditions aren’t necessary to improve the quality of life of poor families.

In fact, while analysis by the World Bank’s Berk Ozler shows that making cash transfers conditional on kids being in school has a bigger impact than a no-strings-attached check, even “conditionless cash” considerably raises enrollment. Conditional programs increase the odds of a child being in school by 41 percent; unconditional programs, 23 percent. Other studies of cash transfers in developing countries have found a range of impacts that had little or nothing to do with any conditions applied: lower crime rates, improved child nutrition and child health, lower child mortality, improved odds of kids being in school, and declines in early marriage and teenage pregnancy.

Readers continue the debate:

Congress wants to be involved because the topic seems national, seems important (aggrieved minorities), seems controversial (big biz vs tribes), and gives the politician a platform on which to look important (spouting). The whole farce is just a simulacrum of doing the real work of legislating (which is slow, quiet, and requires hard work), and further proves that Congressional DC is becoming a theatre of the absurd, only play-acting in their mission to serve the people.

Another reader:

I wanted to write in as an alum of the Central Michigan University Chippewas. Your reader who worried about an overreach of political correctness – “Are the Atlanta Braves next? What about the Florida State Seminoles?” – might want to reconsider a few points:

(1) Your reader suggests that stigmas can be removed as a society matures. Would anyone find it appropriate to walk onto a Native American reservation and call the inhabitants “Redskins?”

Would anyone even think to use the term “Braves?” A word that can’t be said to the face of those it represents still carries a stigma. These are words that still hurt.

(2) The Atlanta Braves should absolutely be in this discussion. Another simple test: is it a net good when a 14-year-old Native American can turn on TBS and watch a stadium of predominantly white Southerners perform the “tomahawk chop?” Appropriating exaggerated stereotypes of a marginalized society is a harmful thing, even if the actions aren’t ill-intentioned.

(3) Finally, to answer your reader: it matters a great deal when tribes approve their names to be associated with a school. If the Seminole Tribe finds it positive to have a relationship with Florida State University, that’s their business. The same can be said of my school: having a Native American tribe tied into my identity at Central Michigan was extremely positive. Our student body was able to learn about a culture they otherwise might not have been exposed to and develop a greater appreciation of our neighbors.

Another sends the above image:

More images in the same vein on a website that examines racism in sports here. Bill Moyers speaks to Sherman Alexie about racist sports mascots and lack of power in the Indian communities here. Changing bullshit racism in sports matters, just as changing bullshit homophobia in sports matters. It contributes to what society does and does not think is okay.

(Image: “Mascots” from the National Congress Of American Indians‘ racial equality ad campaign)

Ezekiel Emanuel believes a small change in packaging could make a big difference in overdoses:

A good way to kill yourself is by overdosing on Tylenol or other pills. About 90 percent of the deaths from unintentional poisonings occur because of drugs, and not because of things like household cleaners or bleach. There is a simple way to make medication less accessible for those who would deliberately or accidentally overdose — and that is packaging…. Pills should be packaged in blister packs of 16 or 25. Anyone who wanted 50 would have to buy numerous blister packages and sit down and push out the pills one by one. Turns out you really, really have to want to commit suicide to push out 50 pills. And most people are not that committed.

He cites a British experience as evidence:

In September 1998, Britain changed the packaging for paracetamol, the active ingredient in Tylenol, to require blister packs for packages of 16 pills when sold over the counter in places like convenience stores, and for packages of 32 pills in pharmacies. The result: a study by Oxford University researchers showed that over the subsequent 11 or so years, suicide deaths from Tylenol overdoses declined by 43 percent, and a similar decline was found in accidental deaths from medication poisonings. In addition, there was a 61 percent reduction in liver transplants attributed to Tylenol toxicities. (Although it was a long and detailed study, some studies got a different result. One in Ireland, for example, found no reduction in overdoses.)

Update from a reader:

Such packaging would be disastrous for one of the largest groups of people who use pain-killers and anti-inflammatories: those with arthritis. Many can’t even manipulate a “child-proof” cap (hence the sale of larger quantities in bottles specifically touted as “arthritis-friendly”); imagine their frustration in trying to get a pill or two out of a blister pack.