Friday, November 13, 2009 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Emily, I too have been reading the dribbles emerging from the soon-to-be-published Palin memoir.
You're right that we mine her for insight on sexual politics, and I was
particularly intrigued with the information that the AP published about
Palin's reaction to Bristol's pregnancy
and the McCain campaign's treatment of that pregnancy. According to the
AP article, Palin felt that the statement prepared by McCain's team
about Bristol "glamorized and endorsed her daughter's situation." As
opposed to what? Debasing and shaming her daughter's situation? Making
her into a cautionary tale? The attempt at making Bristol an abstinence spokeswoman
who appeared on multiple national morning shows was far more
glamorizing than any statements the McCain campaign made on her behalf ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX.)
-
sponsorship
A post from DoubleX intern Jessica Dweck:
In an Onion-esque piece of news this week, the New York Times reported
that Justice Anthony Kennedy ordered a student newspaper to “tidy up”
its coverage of his recent appearance at a high school assembly.
Kennedy, an ardent protector of First Amendment rights—and apparently,
irony–allowed the young journalists to attend the event on the
condition that his office would pre-approve any articles written about
him.
Why would Justice Kennedy do such a thing? Two reasons. First, the
Bill of Rights protects speech in part to encourage transparency and
create a Millian
slurry of ideas in which the creamy globs of truth eventually float to
the top. An inaccurate or misleading quotation by reporters with
exclusive access to Kennedy's speech would be nearly impossible to
correct. Second, and perhaps more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has a deep-seated interest in practicing defensive PR ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX.)
-
sponsorship
Gina Kolata points out,
once again, that diet and exercise have not been shown to affect breast
cancer rates. Massive, well-run observational studies and randomized
controlled trials turn up nothing. This finding appears to be
unacceptable; popular culture rejects it utterly. Women’s magazines
continue to preach the holy gospel of five fruits and vegetables a day.
Doctors continue to tell patients at high risk of breast cancer that
diet matters. The director of one of the (fruitless?) studies tells
Kolata that doctors need to “rethink the studies.” Diet and exercise
“are likely quite important, but we just aren’t getting the answers” ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX.)
-
sponsorship
A post from DoubleX Staff:
This morning, I told my kids about the no complaining project, pledged
to try it—and then promptly launched into a description of an expense
form I had to fill out that was driving me crazy. My husband reminded
me of my promise. But my 9-year-old son Eli pointed out that I wasn't
whining—I was explaining a problem, and this should be called an
"explaint." I like it. I also found that, duly categorized, my rant
turned more rational and moderate. I worked myself out of a lather
rather than into one ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX.)
-
sponsorship
A post from DoubleX writer Amanda Marcotte:
While conceding that Huffington Post might write headlines for its
celebrity bloggers, I still have to admit that I knew no good would
come from an article titled "Don't Forget To Have Kids."
This myth of the woman who "forgets" to have kids is so common that we
don't stop to think about how sexist it really is, since the
implication is that women are prone to such heights of stupidity that
they could forget about the existence of marriage and babies, even in a
world that has multiple cable channels (especially TLC) dedicated to
marriage and babies. If you think about the myth of "forgetting" to
have kids even for a moment, it falls apart, because the more common
problem is forgetting to use contraception, and having kids because of
it ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX.)
-
sponsorship
Intra-party warfare starring Sarah Palin—who can resist the leaks about the jagged bits of her new book, Going Rogue?
She makes the bizarro accusation that the McCain campaign stuck her
with a $50,000 legal bill for her own vetting. (Convenient confusion
over the cost of defending herself against ethical accusations in
Alaska?) She goes after Katie Couric while at the same time claiming
the McCain people said “right on” about her first interview with
Couric. (Blinded by those lights from Russia?) She was awed by the
clothes and told they were “part of the convention.” That one actually
sounds plausible to me ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX.)