Heretics' almanac

History of feminism

It appears that at any given time, I have one or two major projects going on at Wikipedia (often at the expense of this blog), and I should get into the habit of unleasing my point of view on these pages, since I'm not supposed to in Wikipedia.

Lately, I've written a few stubs and a few half-finished articles on Norwegian feminists. I stumbled across this when I for reasons I can't remember wrote an article on Katti Anker Møller. I got in touch with a few people who know more about the topic than I do and found some recommendations for further articles.

Aside from Katti Anker Møller, one was particularly interesting to me, namely Berit Ås, who was active in politics in the 1970s. She was elected to one term in the Norwegian parliament, as the first leader of the newly founded Socialist Left Party. When she was active, I largely dismissed her as a hopelessly radical politician, dogmatically socialist with no sense of reality. As it turns out, I was mostly wrong.

Stanley Kurtz needs more facts

During the debate on the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, Norway and Sweden were used as examples of the dangers of such unions. Much of this seems to be based on an article by Stanley Kurtz in the Weekly Standard. Kurtz points out that marriage is "dying" in Scandinavia and draws the conclusion that this (inevitably, it seems) must be a result of gay marriage.

In Norway, at least, the law allows for same sex civil unions that are equivalent to, but not the same as, marriage. The first such civil unions took place in 1993, when 156 couples tied the knot. This has grown to a whopping 204 since then. In 2005, there were 22,392 different-sex marriages, which is to say that new same-sex formal unions were less than 1% of the total.

Kurtz's evidence for the perils involved is that a large proportion of children born in Norway are born out of wedlock. This much is certainly true. Between 1951 and 1955, 3.65% of all live births were to unwed mothers; in 2004, the percentage was 51.36%. For purposes of reference, the percentage born out of wedlock was 9% between 1971 and 1975; 20% between 1981 and 1985; and 34.8% between 1991 and 1995. In other words, this is a long-term trend that started long before same-sex unions were allowed.

But these statistics are a bit misleading. In 2004, there were 1,002,617 children under 17 in Norway. Of these, 643,582 lived with in a home with a married couple. That's 64%. In addition, 157,969 lived with an unmarried couple, so that's an additional 15.7%. 185,367 live with a single mother; 15,699 live with a single father. All told, that means that nearly 80% of all children in Norway live in a home with two parental figures, and most of these probably consist of a man and a woman.

Illegally (?) counting calls

Today, it came to light that the Bush administration has been monitoring "tens of millions" of domestic phone calls made by and between "ordinary Americans," prompting lots of sabre-rattling related to civil rights, illegal wiretapping, and other verbiage associated with Bush's "imperial presidency."

From what I can tell, the purpose of this program has been to create a baseline of "normal" phone traffic from which it would be possible to discern suspicious activity. In other words, the government hasn't been trying to find out what these tens of millions of people have been saying to each other, or even who they've been talking with - it's rather like counting cars on freeways without taking down their license plates.

Or so it seems; the Bushies aren't exactly flowing over with credibility on this issue, as it appears that Bush's definition of what is "lawful" is "whatever I say is lawful." It's hard to believe that the NSA performed a thorough legal review before starting all this. And the telcoms's lawyers probably figured that they'd be in a lot less trouble for believing the assurances of the administration than going against their notion of vital security interests.

Alito and women's right to privacy

Roe v Wade is getting a lot of airtime these days.  Pundits on both sides of the issue are pretty sure that Alito would try to overturn it given the chance, and "abortion" is getting a lot of wind in the fictitious, parallel universe presidential race of Vinick vs. Santos. 

I'm no constitutional lawyer (but then again, neither was Harriet Miers), but I will venture an opinion or two here.

Marriage and the state

In a recent New Republic, Jonathan Rauch  makes the strongest case yet for same-sex marriage, which is that to disallow it would be to gut the special purpose society gives to marriage in general. While it may casue cognitive dissonance among some to allow that same-sex couples are equivalent to heterosexual couples, the implications of disallowing same-sex marriage will inevitably have the perverse effect of telling people that marriage is no big deal if you want to raise kids and)or give those who enter into such a commitment protection under the law.

I've previously argued that a natural consequence of the same-sex marriage ban ought to be a constitutional amendment that takes government out of the marriage business. Instead, those who marry enter into a legally enforcable contract that has privileges and obligations that depend on the couple' religion, preferences, etc.

This position is, I suppose consistent with Rauch's. If a ban on same-sex marriage guts undermines society's interest in promoting marriage, it is better that society get out altogether.  Bigamy would be be prosecuted as a matter of fraud, but consensual polygamy or polyandry would be allowed. Adultery, abandonment, constructive abandonment, or annoying personal habits would be grounds for divorce if stipulated as such in the marriage contracts. Parties could also establish conflict resolution mechanisms upfront.   It would force a lot of couples to discuss things upfront, since they could opt out of provisions rather than accepting them as a matter of state law.

Rauch is also right: if the state has the authority to regulate marriage, it has the responsibility to understand such regulation has.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

The NYCLU has lost its mind

The New York Civil Liberties Union feels compelled to weigh in on what is now known as the "Columbia University issue" brought about by the David Project.  It is as I predicted: by making a stink about the convictions of the Israel-hating faculty members, it all becomes an issue of academic freedom and freedom of speech, when it should be about minimal standards of academic performance.

Still, the NYCLU letter - altogether too verbose as it is - makes some pretty silly arguments.  For example:

More on Annan's hypocricy

Norwegian public opinion tends to look at the secretary general of the United Nations as a sort of überpremier, sometimes writing that Annan will "summon" Bush, Blair or another head of state for a scolding.  The truth is that the secretary general has very little power - he runs the secretariat and owns a bully pulpit.  In order to prove what Dore Gold terms a "lack of standards," Annan is now refusing to assist the Iraqis in conducting trials against members of the Saddam regime.

The reason is that the Iraqi tribune wants to be able to recommend the death penalty for some of the defendants.  Both Annan and European leaders are against the death penalty and won't assist in trials that may result in condemned defendants.

Just for the record: I'm also against the death penalty.  But Annan and the European leaders are full of shit (which is more noteworthy than news at this point):

It's about competence, not freedom of speech

The David Project has produced what is termed an "underground film" that is causing controversy on the Columbia University campus.  The film shows a number of students complaining that professors at this venerable (full disclosure: I earned my graduate degree at Columbia) Ivy League institution intimidating them for pro-Israel beliefs and even Jewish identity.  There have been calls to fire particularly offensive professors, and so this has become an issue of freedom of speech and academic discourse.

Professors accused of "misusing academic freedom" defend themselves by a) denying the most serious accusations; and b) saying that they have a right to free speech and academic freedom.  Yes, say others, but these professors must also respect the right of others to hold and express dissenting opinions.  The university administration is now trying to work all this out.

So here's what I think:

Alternatives to the death penalty

New York Times features an article on the death penalty today, highlighting the case of one Michael Ross, who strangled "four teenage girls and two young women," after raping at least one of them.  Ross is scheduled to be executed in Connecticut on January 26th, after he gave up on further efforts to postpone what he supposedly felt was the inevitable.  So now he's headed for the clean, clinical execution chamber in Somers, CT, where the executioner will push a button in another room that will start the flow of poison into Ross's body.  He'll die, probably evacuating his bowels and making other messes that prison officials will clean up - after the curtain has been drawn so the witnesses don't have to see what a ghastly mess it is to kill someone.

(Scott Turow, the famed legal thriller writer, has written a compelling case agains the death penalty that is nicely summarized in this New Yorker article.)

Proponents of the death penalty like to point to cases like Ross.  This is a guy who deserves to die.  And opponents of the death penalty like to point out much more iffy cases, where there's doubts about the guilt, extenuating circumstances, or subsequent developments that make the criminal less culpable. 

More bickering on second-hand smoke

Bjørn Stærk (not a smoker himself) believes that the UK is making a mistake in considering a ban on smoking in pubs, restaurants, etc.  A debate ensues on his web page, centered primarily on civil liberties.  Liberty, one contributor writes is:

...the freedom to do what you want with your own property.  Do you own the disco?

Bjørn is not convinced by the evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous to your health.  The debate on the page devolves into astonishingly uninformed debate on what a monopoly is.  There is the suggestion that market forces should decide the matter: those who prefer not to experience second hand smoke can go to smoke-free bars; others can go to bars where smoking is allowed.