Not-So-Random YouTubery: Matthew Fox on Sesame Street

Jan. 19, 2010:

Matthew Fox: Hi, I'm Matthew.

Elmo: And Elmo's Elmo.

Matthew: And we're here to tell you all about the word "bones."

Elmo: Yes! Bones!

Matthew: Now, bones are what are under your skin.

Elmo: Oh, oh, but does that, Mr. Matthew, mean Elmo has bones under his fur?

Matthew: Sure, yeah, we all have bones. Bones help support your whole body.

Elmo: Oh. But does that mean Elmo has bones, um, in his arms?

Matthew: Yeah, an arm bone.

Elmo: How 'bout, how 'bout his leg?

Matthew: Uh, yes, we have leg bones.

Elmo: Oh, well, how 'bout Elmo's—Elmo's neck?

Matthew: Oh yeah. Yeah, we have neck bones, too. You see, bones are all over your body, and they look like this. [lifts bone]

Bone: Hey! Whaddaya call two scoops of chocolate on a fibula…? An ice cream bone! [They all laugh.] Get it?! A fibula's a bone! Ice cream bone! See what I did there?!

Elmo [to Matthew]: What kinda bone is that?

Matthew: A funny bone. [They all laugh.]

All three, looking directly into camera: BONES!!!

Open Wide...

Friday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Liss and Deeky's Lost Excitement Containers. Note: These containers have been recalled for poor performance.

Recommended Reading:

Shark-fu: Chris Matthews, Post-Racialism, and Acceptable Blackness

Andy: Gates Says 'Major Announcement on 'DADT' Set for Tuesday

Fannie: Story about Murdered Woman Focuses Entirely on Poor Accused Man Who Had to Deal with Bitchy Wife

Ouyang Dan: The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants: A Discussion That Always Happens from Outside

Mary: Broken Government

BeckySharper: The Most Ridonkulous Op-Ed of 2010: Audrey Irvine Rides Again!

Thea Lim: From Paris With Love…and Some Hilarious Racism!

Jorge: Wow!

Leave your links in comments...

Open Wide...

Daily Polar Bear



Damon Lindelof, a polar bear, and Carlton Cuse. On velvet.

Open Wide...

Roeder: Guilty

After 37 minutes of deliberation, a jury of seven men and five women have found Scott Roeder guilty of first-degree murder for killing Dr. George Tiller. Roader now faces life in prison.

Good.

[H/T to Shaker sunflwrmoonbeam.]

Open Wide...

Watch Your Mouth - Part 3: Use Your Big-Kid Thesaurus

Part 3 in an Ongoing Series (You may want to read Part 1 and Part 2 first)

In the course of discoursing on the web, I've witnessed and participated in many conversations about semantics and language.

I've seen discussions about whether the word "niggardly" is racist or not, whether or not the origin of the phrase "rule of thumb" refers to domestic violence, and whether the term "lame" has entered common usage to the extent that people who have difficulty walking should just stop being offended and shut up about it, already.

Now, I know that the word "niggardly" is not etymologically derived from a racial slur, but so what? If my listener/reader doesn't know this, do I really want to derail from whatever topic it is I'm addressing by pressing that debate, just so I can sound like a Dickens character?

I also know that the origin of the phrase "rule of thumb" is hotly debated -- maybe it really is tied to the maximum size of a stick with which a man is allowed to beat his wife, and maybe it isn't -- but do I want to spend the next two hours arguing that? Isn't it just as effective for me to say: "General rule"?

This leads me to the most complex question in this entire series (for me, at least): Why am I choosing the words that I'm choosing?

Am I choosing certain words and phrases because I think they will help me establish my own identity?

The choice of the handle PortlyDyke, for example, is rich with reclamation for me on two fronts, but it also serves as a handy auto-filter -- if people are offended or put off by my screen name at first read, I can guess that they're probably going to be offended by a lot of things I say, and if they chuckle upon reading or hearing it (which happens a lot) I figure they're probably going to appreciate my sense of humor.

Am I choosing language that helps me bridge a gap?

As a 53-year-old who interacts with online communities which are often composed of much younger people, I find that I often refrain from using idioms that "date" me. When I find myself communicating with someone who is relatively new to feminist thought, I may not use phrases that are commonly used in Feminism 301 conversations. If I'm talking to my 83-year-old mother about my spiritual views (which is rare, I grant you, but it happens from time to time), I tend to use phrases that are somewhere between her notion of the Big White Guy in the sky and my ideas about a Vast Organizing Consciousness.

Am I choosing idioms because I think they are going to "buy" me some kind of acceptance?

This is a slippery edge for me, really -- because at the same time that I'm dropping some terms that would peg me for an old fogie, I might also slip in some words and phrases so that I can sound "hep", even if I don't use these in my day-to-day speech (and see, that right there is an example of an old-fogie word -- "hep" -- which is a dead giveaway). This behavior, by the way, can go horridly, horridly wrong (as when your Dad tries to sound cool in front of your friends).

Also, in the same moment that I'm searching for words that Mom can relate to, I might be filing off the edges of my own belief system, in the hope that my world-view would be more accepted by my family. Which sucks.

Sadly, these attempts to purchase acceptance inauthentically rarely really work in the long run. An example I'd point to is Rachel Maddow.

There are many things about her show that I absolutely adore -- the way she opens interviews with potentially combative people by asking them if she's gotten all the facts right in her intro, the general fastidiousness of her civility toward them when debating even the most difficult issues, etc., -- but there is one thing I deeply dislike -- her continuing use of the words "lame" and "lame-itude" as an idiom for "bad". I even wrote to her about it (gently, civilly).

At first, I thought my reaction to her use of this term was me "just" being offended by the ablism demonstrated (which would have been enough) -- but I realized later that another thing that grated on me was that she seemed to me to be using this ablist term in order to sound cool. There is just something about the emphasis she uses when she says it that rings to me of the 11th-grader who's trying to get in with the popular kids. It seems out of place in the midst of her usual Rhodes-Scholar presentation, and it jars the hell out of me every single time. I want to say to her: "Rachel, you're the first out news-lesbian headlining her own show on a major network. You're cool enough already."

I think it's important for me to know why I'm speaking or writing as I am. I think it's important for me to be clear about my intention when I communicate.

For me, the only reason to post something like this to a blog is to communicate and connect with other people, with the intention of raising their consciousness (and my own, which happens for me both during the writing process and subsequent discussion in comments), and I don't think I'm going to be very effective at that if I am leaning on idioms that a) have underlying meaning that I don't support, b) are inserted to somehow buff up my image rather than communicate my point, or c) I already know are likely to offend people that I want to communicate and connect with.

I have found, in every single case where I have used an offensive word or phrase, or undermined my own communication by employing an idiom which was rooted in the language of oppression that there was a readily accessible alternative. Let me repeat that-- I have found in every single case that there were other words available.

Other words that not only didn't alienate my intended audience, but which usually spoke my point more eloquently.

To those who would argue that maintaining this level of consciousness about language is an onerous burden laid upon them by the evils of political-correctness, I will simply say:

There are over 200,000 words in the Oxford English Dictionary -- many of them languishing in the linguistic lethargy of left-behind lingo. If you really don't care who you offend, or how much you sabotage your own communication in the process of maintaining your "with it" factor, you might actually sound edgier if you use something like "That's so absolutely inverted" instead of "That's so gay" -- because never forget -- the really cool kids don't repeat the offensive slurs -- they invent them.

And for those of you who find that the effort toward clear, responsible communication is a yoke which does not chafe you, remember -- there is no shame in visiting Thesaurus.com.

In other words, there are always other words.

Open Wide...

Murray Hill Inc. for Congress!

Eliminating the need of a front of a congressperson, Murray Hill Incorporated has filed to run in Maryland's 8th Congressional District (Republican) primary. From their press release:

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office. As Supreme Court observer Lyle Denniston wrote in his SCOTUSblog, “If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating them — under the First Amendment free-speech clause — as the equal of human beings.”

Murray Hill Inc. agrees. “The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?”

Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”

[...]

Murray Hill Inc. plans on filing to run in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District. Campaign Manager William Klein promises an aggressive, historic campaign that “puts people second” or even third.

“The business of America is business, as we all know,” Klein says. “But now, it’s the business of democracy too.” Klein plans to use automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and computer-generated avatars to get out the vote.

Open Wide...

National Fuckery League

[Trigger warning.]

I don't guess I'm the only person who's noticed that the NFL has a violent fuckneck problem. There are, to be sure, a lot of good guys in the NFL, but holy hell are there a lot of bad ones, too. And I'm not even talking about the guys with gun charges, or criminal mischief charges, or DUIs, or drug busts. Or even the guy with the dogfighting ring. I'm talking about the alleged rapists and domestic abusers. The guys who hurt women, and hurt them badly.

Today, there are two more stories of NFL players being accused of violent acts against women. Angelina Mavilia, a trans woman, alleges that NFL cornerback Eric Green sexually assaulted her

then got "extremely agitated and threatening," according to court documents, and warned: "This never happened. You'd better not tell."
And Supriya Harris alleges that running back Steven Jackson attacked her while she was nine months pregnant (with his child) and then instructed her to tell hospital staff that her injuries were the result of falling in the shower.

Naturally, I do not know the veracity of these individual allegations. But I do know that the NFL has a problem. And I also know that all their ostensible efforts to change the culture don't mean shit, as long as the culture includes transmisogynist/homophobic hazing and banter like coaches still calling their players "ladies" and players still calling each other "fags."

These men spent egregious amounts of time in an environment in which anything considered feminine is dehumanized. And pretending that subjecting oneself to, and participating in, such ritualistic dehumanization doesn't have any practical consequences only increases the number of people who are going to get hurt.

If the NFL wants to get serious about its violent fuckneck problem, they can start with banning hate speech on the field and in the locker rooms. And follow that with a zero tolerance policy on sexual violence and domestic assault.

Because right now? Your policy sucks. And everyone knows it.

Open Wide...

Inside The Technology Hatch


Steve Jobs unveils Apple's newest gizmo, the iPad. The bazillionaire is pictured here demonstrating the popular app Sawyer's Sweaty Abs. The unit will retail for $815 and is guaranteed to deflect flaming arrows. In the event of a water landing, the iPad can be used as a flotation device.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"We live in a dangerous world. What we can't do at a time when we're in two wars and we have a very determined enemy in Al Qaeda, we can't stand down."David Axelrod, Senior Adviser to President Obama, explaining why the President's proposed spending freeze excludes the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.

Open Wide...

Let's Hear It for the Girl

The other day I said that if health care/insurance reform does happen, it may well be because Congressional Dems made it happen despite the president. I should have added: And because of Nancy Pelosi.

[At a press conference], a striking quote from Pelosi underscoring her determination to get health care done:
You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole-vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people.
It's often been observed that this health care fight is the defining moment of Pelosi's career, and that victory would seal her place as one of the most powerful House Speakers in modern history. She seems to realize this, too.
And unlike some other Democrats we could mention, she's still trying to get the Senate to include a public option. Otherwise known as the thing that would make this thing national healthcare reform.

Open Wide...

Open Thread


Hosted by the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Gorillaz: "Clint Eastwood"

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What the fuck?

Open Wide...

Daily Kitteh



Tils

Open Wide...

Blog Note

[THIS POST WILL STAY AT THE TOP UNTIL THE TECH ISSUES ARE RESOLVED. NEW POSTS ARE BELOW. PLEASE CLICK ON POST TITLES TO GET TO DISQUS COMMENTS.]

As you may have noticed, our author pix and commenting just disappeared. I have no idea why; I haven't touched the template. I've also got no idea how to fix it, and our tech guru, Space Cowboy, is currently unavailable.

So, um, yeah. I guess just use Blogger commenting, accessible from directly beneath the post title, for the time being. UPDATE: Actually, it looks like Disqus is still accessible via the individual post pages. So click on the post title to get to the post page, and then you'll be able to read and leave comments.

Sorry for the inconvenience!

UPDATE 2: Just FYI, we are working on a temporary fix, so that we can at least access comments again from the main page. Again, my apologies.

Open Wide...

A Topical Scene, with Deeky and Liss

Deeky: I was just looking at that photo of Steve Jobs with his iPad.

Liss: I totes don't want an iPad. I'm holding out for the Max-iPad.

Deeky: LOLOLOLOL!!! Here's what the iPad reminds me of:


Liss: Here's what it reminds me of:



Fin.

Open Wide...

Random YouTubery: Faraday on Punk

THE LOST-A-THON CONTINUES!

For Iain, whose hatred of Daniel Faraday is so strong he declared upon seeing this advert, "Subaru is dead to me. On the list of people for whom I have an irrational hatred pehaps only Regis Philbin is ranked higher than Jeremy Davies."



Jeremy Davies explains why the Subaru is "like punk rock."

(Just FYI, he's wrong. The Subaru is nothing at all like punk rock.)

[Cross-posted.]

Open Wide...

TV News Item Korner

Hey Shakers, it's Kenny Blogginz, and I'm back with another one of my classic TV news items! According to Ain't it Cool News, David Spade is partnering with TBS to create an animated JOE DIRT series! This is the best news I've heard all day!

Everyone who's anyone remembers the smash hit 2001 comedy blockbuster Joe Dirt starring David Spade and Kid Rock. David Spade's performance was hailed by Ebert and Roeper as "the Brando of Generation Tween." No-one could tell whether he was making fun of Joe Dirts or endorsing them! It was a philosophical masterpiece.


I think we can all agree that America is heading down a dark path, what with all the Scary Health Care and Evil Socialist Take-Overs. But if anyone can save our fair country, my friends, it's DAVID SPADE. Now my day-time tv-viewing needs shall ALL be met!

Yes Dear
King of Queens
Everybody Loves Raymond
Joe Dirt: The Animated Series in 1080 HD and 3D where available
Friends

TBS: Very Funny indeed! You know what would REALLY blow my shit out the water? If Larry the Cable Guy could have a few cameo appearances! This show could be the Fake/Real/Fake(?) Redneck Comedy that America DESERVES!

Open Wide...

News from Shakes Manor

There is but one food on the planet that Iain won't eat: Brussels sprouts. He hates them with a red hot fiery passion.

I, on the other hand, love them. I only recently tried Brussels sprouts for the first time, as neither of my parents are crazy about them, so we never had them for dinner when I was growing up, and I always heard how they were like the WORST! FOOD! EVARARR! The culinary equivalent of the proverbial root canal. And their being the only food Iain won't eat made me even more reluctant.

But I try everything at least once.

So I had them at a restaurant not long ago, and I loved the tasty little buggers!

Now Brussels sprouts and I are totes BFFs. I just had like a million of them for lunch. But before I dug in, I took a picture and texted it to Iain.


Liss: Yummy! Brussels sprouts for lunch!

Iain: Thanks. I just projectile vomited all over my desk.

Liss: Nom nom nom. I'm so gonna have the big time fartz.

Iain: Don't tell me you actually enjoyed it?

Liss: OMG delish! (I even ate one raw & liked it.) I steamed them and then sauteed them with some mushrooms & a little bit of bacon. Amazing.

Iain: It's like you're talking about how you like to go to graveyards at night and gnaw at the bones of the fresh corpses.

Something tells me I am not going to make Iain a convert.

Open Wide...

Dishonest, Irresponsible, and With Callous Disregard

Those were the findings against Dr. Andrew Wakefield & his research methods by the General Medical Council:

The doctor who first suggested a link between MMR vaccinations and autism acted unethically, the official medical regulator has found.

Dr Andrew Wakefield's 1998 Lancet study caused vaccination rates to plummet, resulting in a rise in measles - but the findings were later discredited.

The General Medical Council ruled he had acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in doing his research.

Afterwards, Dr Wakefield said the claims were "unfounded and unjust".

[...]

The verdict, read out by panel chairman Dr Surendra Kumar, criticised Dr Wakefield for the invasive tests, such as spinal taps, that were carried out on children and which were found to be against their best clinical interests.

The panel said Dr Wakefield, who was working at London's Royal Free Hospital as a gastroenterologist at the time, did not have the ethical approval or relevant qualifications for such tests.

The GMC also took exception with the way he gathered blood samples. Dr Wakefield paid children £5 for the samples at his son's birthday party.

Dr Kumar said he had acted with "callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer".

He also said Dr Wakefield should have disclosed the fact that he had been paid to advise solicitors acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR.
Two of Wakefield's former colleagues who helped assist in the research were also ruled as acting unethically.

The only thing surprising about this ruling is that it took two and a half years to come to it, really, given the circumstances of his research.

More on who Wakefield is, what he has done because of this research, and some details of the research that led to this ruling below..

From a 2009 eSkeptic article:

In 1998 a British doctor named Andrew Wakefield published an article in the respected medical journal The Lancet. He did intestinal biopsies via colonoscopy on 12 children with intestinal symptoms and developmental disorders, 10 of whom were autistic, and found a pattern of intestinal inflammation. The parents of 8 of the autistic children thought they had developed their autistic symptoms right after they got the MMR vaccine. The published paper stated clearly: “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.”


Despite this disclaimer, Wakefield immediately held a press conference to say the MMR vaccine probably caused autism and to recommend stopping MMR injections. Instead, he recommended giving the 3 individual components separately at intervals of a year or more.[...]

Wakefield’s data was later discredited (more about that later) but even if it had been right, it wouldn’t have been good science. To show that intestinal inflammation is linked to autism, you would have to compare the rate in autistic children to the rate in non-autistic children. Wakefield used no controls. To implicate the MMR vaccine, you would have to show that the rate of autism was greater in children who got the vaccine and verify that autism developed after the shot. Wakefield made no attempt to do that.


His thinking was fanciful and full of assumptions. He hypothesized that measles virus damaged the intestinal wall, that the bowel then leaked some unidentified protein, and that said protein went to the brain and somehow caused autism. There was no good rationale for separating and delaying the components, because if measles was the culprit, wouldn’t one expect it to cause the same harm when given individually? As one of his critics pointed out: “Single vaccines, spaced a year apart, clearly expose children to greater risk of infection, as well as additional distress and expense, and no evidence had been produced upon which to adopt such a policy.”

Wakefield had been involved in questionable research before. He published a study in 1993 where he allegedly found measles RNA in intestinal biopsies from patients with Crohn’s disease (an inflammatory bowel disease). He claimed that natural measles infections and measles vaccines were the cause of that disease. Others tried to replicate his findings and couldn’t. No one else could find measles RNA in Crohn’s patients; they determined that Crohn’s patients were no more likely to have had measles than other patients, and people who had had MMR vaccines were no more likely to develop Crohn’s. Wakefield had to admit he was wrong, and in 1998 he published another paper entitled “Measles RNA Is Not Detected in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.” In a related incident, at a national meeting he stated that Crohn’s patients had higher levels of measles antibody in their blood. An audience member said that was not true — he knew because he was the one who had personally done the blood tests Wakefield was referring to. Wakefield was forced to back down.


In 2002, Wakefield published another paper showing that measles RNA had been detected in intestinal biopsies of patients with bowel disease and developmental disorders. The tests were done at Unigenetics lab. Actually, Wakefield’s own lab had looked for measles RNA in the patients in the 1998 study. His research assistant, Nicholas Chadwick, later testified that he had been present in the operating room when intestinal biopsies and spinal fluid samples were obtained and had personally tested all the samples for RNA with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. The results were all negative, and he testified that Wakefield knew the results were negative when he submitted his paper to The Lancet. Chadwick had asked that his name be taken off the paper. So the statement in the paper that “virologic studies were underway” was misleading. Virologic studies had already been done in Wakefield’s own lab and were negative. Wakefield was dissatisfied with those results and went to Unigenetics hoping for a different answer.


Soon Wakefield’s credibility started to dissolve. The Lancet retracted his paper. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, described the original paper as “fatally flawed” and apologized for publishing it. [...]

Attempts to replicate Wakefield’s study all failed. Other studies showed that the detection of measles virus was no greater in autistics, that the rate of intestinal disease was no greater in autistics, that there was no correlation between MMR and autism onset, and that there was no correlation between MMR and autism, period.
In 2001 the Royal Free Hospital asked Wakefield to resign. In 2003, Brian Deer began an extensive investigation6 leading to an exposé in the The Sunday Times and on British television. In 2005 the General Medical Council (the British equivalent of state medical licensing boards in the U.S.) charged Wakefield with several counts of professional misconduct.


One disturbing revelation followed another. They discovered that two years before his study was published, Wakefield had been approached by a lawyer representing several families with autistic children. The lawyer specifically hired Wakefield to do research to find justification for a class action suit against MMR manufacturers. The children of the lawyer’s clients were referred to Wakefield for the study, and 11 of his 12 subjects were eventually litigants. Wakefield failed to disclose this conflict of interest. He also failed to disclose how the subjects were recruited for his study.


Wakefield was paid a total of nearly half a million pounds plus expenses by the lawyer. The payments were billed through a company of Wakefield’s wife. He never declared his source of funding until it was revealed by Brian Deer. Originally he had denied being paid at all. Even after he admitted it, he lied about the amount he was paid. Before the study was published, Wakefield had filed patents for his own separate measles vaccine, as well as other autism-related products. He failed to disclose this significant conflict of interest. Human research must be approved by the hospital’s ethics committee. Wakefield’s study was not approved. When confronted, Wakefield first claimed that it was approved, then claimed he didn’t need approval. Wakefield bought blood samples for his research from children (as young as 4) attending his son’s birthday party. He callously joked in public about them crying, fainting and vomiting. He paid the kids £5 each.

The General Medical Council accused him of ordering invasive and potentially harmful studies (colonoscopies and spinal taps) without proper approval and contrary to the children’s clinical interests, when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children’s symptoms or medical history. One child suffered multiple bowel perforations during the colonoscopy. Several had problems with the anesthetic. Children were subjected to sedation for other non-indicated tests like MRIs. Brian Deer was able to access the medical records of Wakefield’s subjects. He found that several of them had evidence of autistic symptoms documented in their medical records before they got the MMR vaccine. The intestinal biopsies were originally reported as normal by hospital pathologists. They were reviewed, re-interpreted, and reported as abnormal in Wakefield’s paper.


[...]
(emphasis mine)

While the post is about Dr. Wakefield & the ruling against him (& his colleagues), it's inevitable that the conversation in comments will also include the topic of vaccinations in-general. Thus, we have some commenting guidelines on this one: We realize there are varying views on vaccines among Shakers, and no opinion is off-limits in the discussion, but we request that people make sure they are using "I" language to express those opinions and not making sweeping generalizations. Let's keep this a civil conversation, please.

Open Wide...