did someone muck with the backend here

Re: Eugenics

1

Well, the Tuskeegee Experiment wasn't ended until 1972 -- its the ubiquity of this sort of medicalized oppression that should really shock us.

And of course, always wise to remember that if we're waiting for it to "get worse" -- it's already been worse for a long, long time.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 06- 7-18 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
2

Pretty sure this is something that we are not thinking is getting worse.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 06- 7-18 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
3

Yet.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06- 7-18 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
4

We're going to have the best genes believe me.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 06- 7-18 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
5

Messed up.

Oregon did its last forced sterilization in 1981.

In Puerto Rico in the 70s, "la operacion" had been done on 1 in 3 women of childbearing age.


Posted by: FB | Link to this comment | 06- 7-18 11:57 AM
horizontal rule
6

It's still happening in the UK:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969

Is it productive to try to distinguish between motives based on oppression (racism, ableism, classism, etc.) vs. actual well being of the mother and/or child (mother's health and/or mental incompetency)? If it could be guaranteed that a forced sterilization were not motivated by oppressive forces, I could possibly be convinced that it might be ethical. But that's a big if.


Posted by: FB | Link to this comment | 06- 7-18 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
7

mother's health and/or mental incompetency)

How do you separate THAT from racism/ableism/classism/etc.?


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 06- 7-18 6:15 PM
horizontal rule
8

Carefully.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 06- 7-18 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
9

7: there are definitely cases where some form of forced sterilization is ethical. For example, a child with cancer might be forced to undergo a cancer treatment having the side effect of sterilization. Or how about a woman with profound intellectual disabilities, Eisenmenger's syndrome and a sex life?


Posted by: FB | Link to this comment | 06- 7-18 11:50 PM
horizontal rule
10

Neither of those sound obviously ethical to me. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where "forced" and "ethical" can both be used to describe a sterilization.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 12:46 AM
horizontal rule
11

Well, any medical treatment of a child or a mentally incompetent adult can be ethical and still be "forced" in the sense that they can't give informed consent.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 1:16 AM
horizontal rule
12

1996 was also when the law confining leprosy patients (many of whom were also forcibly sterilized) to sanitoria for their entire lives was finally repealed, and the Ministry of Health admitted responsibility and apologized for the infection of hemophilia patients with HIV from tainted blood products as a direct result of government policy (something that still hasn't happened in the UK over 20 years later). Naoto Kan was Health Minister at the time. He later took a lot of flack for his supposed mishandling of Fukushima as Prime Minister, but he's one of the few Japanese politicians I can remember exhibiting genuine honesty and responsibility.


Posted by: Ume | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 1:28 AM
horizontal rule
13

Similar policies in place in Sweden, too, until surprisingly recently. On a much wider scale than, for example, the UK case above.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 2:05 AM
horizontal rule
14

OT: NMM to parts unknown/Bourdain. Is it already time for another "depression sucks" thread?!?


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 5:17 AM
horizontal rule
15

14: Sure, we can do that.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 6:46 AM
horizontal rule
16

A colleague's kid nephew just died of cancer. Ugh.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 6:51 AM
horizontal rule
17

10: would you just let the kid die? Some cancer treatments can affect fertility but can also be the best chance of beating the cancer.


Posted by: FB | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 9:01 AM
horizontal rule
18

How would that be forced then?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
19

18: because young children aren't capable of giving informed consent. It's legal and ethical for their guardians to consent on their behalf, even if (as might be the case for, say, immunisations) the child is protesting vocally.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
20

We've all been there.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
21

I mean, that's a general problem of guardianship and judgement, and the tradeoffs involved in sterilization-as-side-effect are nowhere near the stickiest such issues.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
22

What if we just excluding Christian Science and the like right off the bat?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
23

Also pretending sentences make sense.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
24

Christian Scientists! No coming anywhere NEAR Moby's bat!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 10:25 AM
horizontal rule
25

Yeah, Moby wants to off it himself.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 10:48 AM
horizontal rule
26

WILL NO ONE RID ME OF THIS MEDDLESOME BAT?


Posted by: Opinionated Joker | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
27

26 is one adjective short of perfect.


Posted by: Mossy Character | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
28

21: agreed. And it's possible that by even bringing up such cases as examples of forced sterilization, I'm conflating fundamentally different things and opening the door to truly oppressive shit.

How do we handle the problem that oppressors will use mental incompetency in bad faith as a fig leaf when their actual motivations are racist, classist, etc., but we still need guardians/advocates to make decisions on behalf of people who really are mentally incompetent? What if the woman with Eisenmenger's syndrome and a sex life is also a poor woman of color with a borderline level of mental competency?


Posted by: FB | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
29

||I am so pleased that Google automatically and immediately autocompletes "What kind of animal" as "What kind of animal is Arthur." No one knows! That was exactly the question I was asking|>


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
30

||Apparently Arthur from the show is supposedly an aardvark. Which is ridiculous because as I a kid I had, and we still have, this book which involves a different Arthur who is an anteater. How the fuck did the Arthur-the-Anteater book that was the original (and better) let PBS's Arthur-the-confusing-animal-but-apparently-an-Aardvark happen? Avoiding disasters like this is why I get up in the morning and go to work.|>


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
31

||My God. So "An Anteater Named Arthur" is copyrighted, and published, by Bernard Waber in 1967. Then, in 1976, less than ten years later, Mark Brown publishes "Arthur's Nose" with an aardvark with a long nose, gradually chopping off Arthur's nose until he becomes the misshapen beast that was licensed to PBS.

Mark Brown was a fucking rip off artist.|>


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 1:38 PM
horizontal rule
32

It's too early for drinking in California.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
33

Some people are emotionally invested in the failure to honor anteater-related intellectual property.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
34

As always, the answer is in the Federal Supplement:

"Like Batman, Arthur appears to be a whimsical and arbitrary creature: a stylized aardvark dressed like a schoolboy." Brown v. It's Entertainment, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 854, 859 (E.D.N.Y 1999).

Your kind of case. Also a great pull quote if you happen to have a particular first name.



Posted by: unimaginative | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
35

SOMETIMES IT'S ONLY MADNESS THAT MAKES US WHAT WE ARE. SO YEAH, MAYBE I'M ARBITRARY. BUT NEVER WHIMSICAL.


Posted by: OPINIONATED BATMAN | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
36

||

Almost out of time for masturbating to Charles Krauthammer.

|>


Posted by: Kreskin | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
37

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!


Posted by: OPINIONATED 1960s TV BATMAN | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
38

37 to 36.


Posted by: Kreskin | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
39

34 is great, I am glad PBS is going against the brazen thieves in Big Novelty Costume Industry. But I was hoping it was a case where Bernard Waber/Anteater-Arthur asserted his rights against Sort-Of-Aardvark-Arthur.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
40

(I have been told that I should inform the blog that I just saw The Godfather for the first time a couple of months ago. It's really a very good movie.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
41

I've yet to see it all the way through.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 4:05 PM
horizontal rule
42

40: Yeah that was me, sorry. It wasn't so much as a "you should inform the blog" as you "you should have informed the blog. Everything's OK now, except now I don't know who to trust.

They walk among us.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
43

-you +a


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
44

I was wondering who the heck that was.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 4:57 PM
horizontal rule
45

But yes, I was firmly advised that it was a gap in my cinematic education that needed filling. Still haven't seen Part II.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 4:58 PM
horizontal rule
46

I heard Part 3 can be shipped.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 5:08 PM
horizontal rule
47

Or skipped.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 5:08 PM
horizontal rule
48

Coppola's Godfather Notebook is fascinating for fans of the movie.


Posted by: Kreskin | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 5:23 PM
horizontal rule
49

I heard Part 3 can be shipped.

Like, believing that unlikely characters are romantically involved?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 5:32 PM
horizontal rule
50

Michael and Kay?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 5:34 PM
horizontal rule
51

Corpse Fredo and Kay.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 5:35 PM
horizontal rule
52

Part 3 can be shipped

Vincent/Joey Zasa
Michael/Altobello
Michael/the Cardinal


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 5:36 PM
horizontal rule
53

Corpse Sonny and Barzini.


Posted by: Kreskin | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 5:36 PM
horizontal rule
54

Sadly, the problems in Part 3 run a lot deeper than any pair of unlikely-to-be-linked characters.


Posted by: Kreskin | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 5:36 PM
horizontal rule
55

I was run down by FF Coppola when approximately 7 mos pregnant, had lost a certain snappiness in the reflexes. He never saw me, was occupied with bellowing about thus & such with Andy of Marquita at the market. I don't hold a grudge, but it's true that I've not gone out of my way to champion FFC chez the kid.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 06- 8-18 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
56

GFII is worth watching.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06- 9-18 1:40 AM
horizontal rule
57

I saw the Godfather for the first time a few months ago, and I didn't see what the big deal was. I have pretty conventional "great movie" tastes, too.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06- 9-18 3:32 AM
horizontal rule