Anti-pornography feminists and the political right.

"What happened to the anti-porn feminists?" is the title of a piece at Boston.com (via A&L Daily). One answer is that the political success of the anti-pornography movement depended on an alliance between very strong feminists and social conservatives, and that just didn't sit well with enough feminists, who found it easier to accept liberal notions of freedom of speech, especially after they heard about the Canadian anti-pornography law having its harshest impact on gay pornography.

[Catharine A.] Mackinnon bristles at the old charge that anti-porn feminists were, in effect, in bed with the political right. ''I actually know who I'm in bed with,'' she said in a recent interview. ''This was just something created by the pornographers to scare liberals off, which doesn't take much.''

But her language has been adopted by some on the right. Now, according to Janet LaRue of Concerned Women for America, ''It may be that we're not hearing as much from the traditional hardline feminist organizations, but when I write and speak on the topic of pornography, one of the aspects that I point out is that it certainly subjugates and degrades women and reduces us to the sum or our body parts.''

The single-sex bathroom issue again.

Yale lawprof Ian Ayres is feeling front page: "What the Constitution Says About Toilets." There isn't a word about the Constitution in Ayres's article, and not just because the claim that single-sex bathrooms are illegal sex discrimination is far-fetched. The Constitution has nothing to say about sex discrimination in private institutions (like Yale).

I wrote about single-sex bathrooms last week, and I am eager to preserve them. Like Ayres, however, I do think there isn't so much point to limiting single-user bathrooms to one sex or the other. But Ayres clearly wants to go further. Getting people to see single-sex single-user bathrooms as an intolerable discrimination is just the foot in the door, as this passage reveals:

This is the kind of sex discrimination that troubles only law professors and no one else; the kind that has no relevance or application outside ivy walls? Well, it matters to Riki Dennis, too. An article in last week's New York Times described how Ms. Dennis, a transgendered woman, was beaten for going into the wrong bathroom. Bathroom discrimination literally does hurt people. If the toilet Dennis entered had been gender neutral, there may not have been an attack. Single-sex toilets give bigots another excuse to hit people.

There's only someone there to beat you up when it's not a single-user bathroom. Of course, mixing with men in a non-single-user bathroom feels physically threatening to many women. If we are to base policy on anecdotes, what will you do with the anecdotes of women who are sexually harassed and raped in mixed bathrooms if sex segregation is outlawed? I can't imagine driving alone on the interstate and needing to stop at a rest area and having to use a mixed-sex bathroom! I would truly be afraid, and I think many women would be too. It would be time to buy stock in whatever company makes Depends Undergarments!

Ayres is the author of a forthcoming book "Straightforward: How to Mobilize Heterosexual Support for Gay Rights." I support gay rights, and I like the topic of the book. I get the message Ayres thinks sex discrimination, which many people already care about, can work as a wedge to get people to start caring (or caring more) about gay rights. But this move to take away sex-segregated bathrooms is totally failing to mobilize my support. (And, again, I'm already pro-gay rights!)

Liquor ads.

Did you know that the hoitily named Distilled Spirits Council of the United States has a "Code of Good Practice" barring liquor ads that "rely upon sexual prowess or sexual success as a selling point for the brand"? Don't most liquor ads do this, you might wonder. Yes, but some ads are so embarrassingly, so ridiculously sexual that the industry does get all self-regulatory.

Cat hunting season in Wisconsin.

There are 1.4 million feral cats in Wisconsin, and they kill, we think, 7.8 million birds a year:

Those numbers are why this April the Conservation Congress will be voting on a proposal to identify feral cats as an unprotected species in Wisconsin–basically meaning they could be hunted.

I really find it hard to picture people going out cat hunting!

UPDATE: More here.

Sheri Carr, senior humane officer at the Dane County Humane Society, said the group has not yet taken a position on the proposal, but wants cat owners to abide by their local ordinances and not let their animals roam.

Shoot a neighbor's cat? "I would hate to think that tame, owned cats who happen to slip out would be at risk of being deemed a wild, unprotected species," Carr said. "It's a delicate (ecological) balance out there, but does that mean people should be able to shoot their neighbor's cat? Probably not."

Mark Smith, the man who brought the proposal, said he is not a cat hater and has owned cats in the past.

"They don't belong in the environment. All I want is for people to be responsible for them," Smith said. "If I catch a cat in the yard in a live trap, I should be able to put that animal down."

Smith added, "There needs to be something to protect the average guy. Cruelty to animals is one thing. Dispatching them is another . . . What I'm trying to do here is make a distinction between a domestic cat and a feral cat. Domestic cats are under the ownership of an individual. If you open the door and kick your cat out at night, you've changed its status."

Karen Etter Hale, executive secretary of the Madison Audubon Society, said the society favors education as the best solution to bird predation by cats.

"I'm not sure redefining cats and having an open season on them is the best way to address the issue," she said. "The Madison Audubon Society believes all cats should be kept indoors. We might make an exception for working farm cats."

The DNR is concerned about the killing of small mammals and birds by pet and feral cats, said Bill Vander Zouwen, wildlife ecology section chief for game management.

"We urge owners to prevent their cats from roaming. That's always been our approach, rather than ask for authority to let hunters shoot cats," he said.

O'Donnell of the Wisconsin Cat Action Team said Smith's proposal "is a callous response to cats."

"There's more humane solutions," he said. "We as citizens should step up and solve the problem humanely."

Though I don't think this proposal will be passed, I do think that the proposal can have a positive, educational effect. An awful lot of people let their cats roam, and don't seem to get the ecology angle -- and that's true here in Madison, where people think so highly of their sensitivity to environmental matters.

ANOTHER UPDATE: This made me laugh.

YET MORE: Alicublog sees into my dark, dark soul.

"American Idol" -- it's "guys" night again.

For some idiotic reason, they are calling attention to the astrological signs of the contestants tonight. Arrrgghhh! How I hate astrology!

Scott Savol is Taurus -- the bull. But does this have anything to do with singing "Can't Help Myself"? Maybe impulsiveness is a Taurus trait. But why should I care? I care that I'm being forced to listen to this old song that sounded clunkily old fashioned back when it came out. Savol's enunciation is so good that I understand a line that has evaded me for over thirty years: "I'm tied to your apron strings." Randy: "You did it." Paula: "You threw in the choreography." Simon: "The choreography ... was horrendous."

Bo Bice is a Scorpio -- threatening to sting us, he says. He sings this incoherent song. "Instead of the gallows of heartache that hang from above/I'll be your cryin' shoulder/I'll be love suicide" -- what on earth is that supposed to mean? Randy: "You've got that gruff... that growl, dude." Paula: "Slam dunk." Simon: "I think it's your competition to lose." Note that last week, Simon said he thought he knew who would win, and I said I thought the person he'd identified was Bo. Simon's comments tonight add weight to that theory.

Anthoy Federov moved to the U.S. from the Ukraine when he was nine -- supposedly that has something to do with the fact that he's a Taurus. He sings this putrid song. Why is that even a song? Randy and Paula love him. And Simon -- I'm glad! -- disagrees: "You're sweet ... but you have as much Latin flair as a polar bear." But he's bathing him in comparisons to Clay, so I assume this criticism is lighting a fire under all the young girls.

Nikko Smith is another damned Taurus. I guess being Taurus helps in this competition. He sings a real song: "Georgia on My Mind." So this makes me want to love him. But he's a little shaky. I think he's in trouble. Wait, now! He's warming up and becoming thrilling! I'm for Nikko! Beautiful! Randy: "Wow... very ambitious ... you ended it so good. ... Brilliant, man." Paula: "Wonderful." Simon: "Everyone will remember that one, last note." Hmmm.... I may vote for the first time this week! Weirdly, he says he sang the song not because of the success of "Ray" at the Oscars, but because "I feel the same way about St. Louis." So, presumably, it's a song you sing about a place, and you sing "Georgia," but you think whatever place you love. What a sweetheart!

Travis Tucker, singing as an Aries, looking all newsboy in suspenders and a cap. He sings this godawful song. Randy tells him he was totally out of tune. "Pitch-wise, it wasn't on, dude." Paula: "You're different and unique." Simon: "That, I thought, was appalling." I think Travis is going. I thought he was going last week. He says, "America, help me out," and flashes a winning smile. Maybe that will work. But it shouldn't.

Mario Vazquez is a Gemini, so he's supposedly going to bring some duality. He goes hatless for the first time, and we get to see that he is not bald, but has a headful of curly hair. He sings "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart," which is a real song. He sings it in a way that makes it less song-y, but I still kind of love him. He ends really prettily. Randy: "I like you, man." Paula: "I've got goose bumps, goose bumps." Simon notes that he's going hatless and being a bit smarmily please-the-parents-y: "I prefer the other side of you, to be honest."

Constantine Maroulis is a Virgo, meaninglessly, and he sings "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic" -- a great song, but he's a little thin. But he pours in the personality, and I think he'll make it. Randy thinks it's a good song, but he's not that good, yet he's got personality. Paula: "Charisma!" Simon: "A bad impersonation of Sting." True!!! Constantine smiles as Ryan Seacrest announces the numbers. He knows he can coast a good ways on his charm. But in all fairness, he (and Travis) ought to go down this week.

Anwar Robinson -- another Taurus -- he sings "Wonderful World." He hits a lot of sweet, clear, high notes. We love him! Standing O! Randy: "I gotta give it up for you... best vocal I've heard this season." Paula emits a classic Paula-ism: "Your voice is truly your instrument." Simon: "You're everything a music teacher should be. You're so nice." Anwar is officially the embodiment of niceness now. That could hurt! Simon tried to sandbag him there.

I still haven't voted this season, but if I were going to vote, I'd vote for Nikko. I think Travis ought to go. For the other loser, I might pick Constantine, because he's the smarmiest. Or maybe Scott, because he's just so charm-impaired. I still like Mario and Bo, my early picks. I don't care one way or the other about Anthony. And it would be wrong to eliminate the uplifting music teacher guy, Anwar. We'll see!

"It is kind of strange, being, like, a famous guy...."

"... This is part of me that's trying to be unfamous, I guess. But it's also: go against the rules attitude. You know, is this a big pose? Yes! It's a pose."

That's a quote from James Hetfield, the Metallica frontman, from the movie "Some Kind of Monster." Ah! The travails of a heavy metal band! But I enjoyed this documentary about the group, the aging guys, so successful, but bumping up against the limitations of a band built on youthful aggression and negativity. They struggle to find a way to keep the aggression and the passion but to lose the negativity. It's a perplexing artistic problem, and they don't have deep personal resources to tap. They have a hired psychiatrist, a thinned out, pointless man who tells them -- mind-numbingly -- to "treasure" each other and treasure their moments together. What a strange human collision!

Note: The directors of this movie made "Brother's Keeper" and the "Paradise Lost" movies. These documentaries are even better than "Some Kind of Monster."

Oregon.

I'll be traveling to Oregon this week to participate in this conference about federalism. I hope to bring you some good blogging -- from Portland (where the hotel is) and from Salem (where the law school, Willamette, is). Much as I love the nothern tier of states and the Pacific coast, I've never been to Oregon, and I won't be there very long, but I'm looking forward to getting my first glimpse of the beautiful state and hope to return soon, perhaps in the big summer road trip I'm cooking up.

The President's movies.

Elisabeth Bumiller writes about President Bush's movie watching habits and reveals that, after he saw "Hotel Rwanda," he invited Paul Rusesabagina -- the person played by Don Cheadle in the movie -- to the White House:

"Don Cheadle is an actor," Mr. Rusesabagina said in a telephone interview on Friday from his home in Brussels, where he now lives. "He is a messenger." The president, he said, "wanted to know who was the person behind the story, the real life behind Hotel Rwanda."

Mr. Rusesabagina said that Mr. Bush was well briefed. "He was informed about everything," he said. "He knew everything that happened in Hotel Collines. He was asking me why did I decide to do that? And then at the end, he said I had done what any human being should have done."

The president and Mr. Rusesabagina also talked about the mass killings in the Darfur region of Sudan, which the United States has labeled genocide. Mr. Rusesabagina reported that "he's interested in what is going on in Sudan, he's following that closely, and he's committed to finding a solution."

Beyond that, Mr. Rusesabagina said the president gave no indication of what he might do. "Sometimes when you talk with a president," Mr. Rusesabagina said, "you have to know that some questions will not be answered."

Also interesting: Bush does not watch that many movies, but the ones he does choose are pretty serious. He's only seen three films this year: "Hotel Rwanda," "The Aviator," and "Paper Clips." "Paper Clips" is a documentary about schoolkids who collect six million paper clips to be able to visualize the deaths in the Holocaust.

What's the short answer?

Yesterday, I complained about Senator McConnell's complete nonanswer to a question I wanted to hear the answer to: How do personal accounts deal with the Social Security solvency problem? I analyzed McConnell's nonanswer as: They don't!

Note: I like short answers. Some things require long, complicated answers. But when I hear a long, unclear answer, I suspect bad motives. I think: You don't know what you're talking about! You're trying to hide something from me! You think I'm dumb enough or apathetic enough to give up trying to understand and will let you and your friends make whatever decisions you like! Long answers are disrespectful. Long answers are anti-democratic.

My post about Senator McConnell brought in some email, by no one attempted to answer the question simply and directly. One emailer pointed me to this website, which is obviously not designed to reach out to anyone who isn't already ideologically wedded to the President's position. It begins with a rant about the "lies" told by "the Left." I'm not going to wade through that, and I don't trust an explanation from anyone who begins like that. Anyway, it looks like the same old obfuscation that really only says it's better to have the money in personal accounts than held by the government.

I'm not on the left or the right, and I'm not committed to the success of either party on this issue. I have no ideological commitment about which policy approach is better. I don't get all jazzed up about Ownership or Preserving the Legacy of Franklin Roosevelt.

Talk to me clearly in sane, rational, pragmatic terms. If you're saying we ought to change things now because of a big financial problem, you need to present your plan as a way to save or put more money into the program. And if you can't put that in a couple straightforward sentences, I will not trust you.

Intimations of spring.

Winter isn't over yet, here in Madison, but we had a day of respite today, with the temperature going up to 57 degrees and the sun shining. Snow was melting like crazy, sending rivulets across the sidewalks.



The clean top layers of snow were dissolving, revealing the filthy underlayers.



A swing was looking for a child.



A tree stretched out around telephone wires, reaching, like all of us, for spring.



My destination: Starbucks. It's wildly strewn with Sunday newspaper.



I read four admissions files and a law review article, drank that grande latte, and, hopping over rivulets and puddles, made my way back home.

"But how does that help the solvency problem?"

On "Meet the Press" today, Tim Russert asked Senate Republican whip Mitch McConnell exactly the question that I have about the President's Social Security plan. That is, he asks and re-asks. You read the transcript and tell me if McConnell ever answers:

MR. RUSSERT: What does private personal accounts do to fix the solvency problem? I don't understand that.

SEN. McCONNELL: What personal accounts are is an extraordinarily good investment. Let's take a 25-year-old, for example. Invests $1,000 in regular Social Security, gets a 2 percent return over 40 years, he gets $61,000. That same young person investing that same $1,000 in a personal retirement account, looking at the average return on investment of the stock market, would get $100,000 more. Why don't we at least discuss that in the context of the overall effort to save Social Security for our children and our grandchildren?

MR. RUSSERT: But how does that help the solvency problem?

SEN. McCONNELL: But why not discuss it? If it is a better deal for younger workers, why rule out adding that to the overall discussion of how we not only save Social Security but make it better for the next generation.

MR. RUSSERT: But when the president says Social Security is going to go bankrupt and we have a problem with solvency and the solution is private accounts, people don't understand that connection. Private accounts don't seem to deal with the solvency problem alone. And the White House acknowledges that.

SEN. McCONNELL: What we want to do is make Social Security better for the next generation, in addition to saving it. At the risk of being redundant, it seems to me that the smart thing to do is to discuss all aspects of this. Every good idea ought to come to the table. We're certainly open to any suggestions the Democrats have in any part of this discussion.

All McConnell can say is: as long as we are going to do something about the solvency problem, why don't we do something else about Social Security that is also a good idea? Why should we not read that as a concession that personal accounts don't help with the solvency problem?

"The Manolo he does not wish to go all Foucault on you."

Or maybe he does! Manolo steps outside of his (shoe) box.

What will become of all the young people who graduate with film studies degrees?

Here's a piece in the NYT called "Is a Cinema Studies Degree the New M.B.A.?"

"You sort of have this illusion coming out of film school that you'll work into this small circle of creatives, but you're actually more pigeonholed as a technician," said [Aaron Bell, who graduated as a film major from the University of Wisconsin in 1988].

For some next-generation students, however, the shot at a Hollywood job is no longer the goal. They'd rather make cinematic technique - newly democratized by digital equipment that reduces the cost of a picture to a few thousand dollars and renders the very word "film" an anachronism - the bedrock of careers as far afield as law and the military.

We are at a cusp now, aren't we? All these smart, interesting, creative people have flocked to film programs, in love with the films of the past, thinking they need to find a place in the film industry, which is ugly and uninspiring, and here is all the new digital equipment, and an entire world ready to receive communication in the visual form about which they have the expertise. What will these people do?

A stickler for the rules.

Here's a NYT piece about what a stickler for rules the man accused as the BTK killer was.

[Dennis L.] Rader and his wife of 34 years went to church each Sunday. Sometimes when he left an after-work bar outing to hurry home, his colleagues would privately breathe a sigh of relief; with him gone, they could drink up and tell off-color jokes. As far back as the eighth grade, Mr. Rader was picked for the prestigious school patrol, who carried big red Stop signs and told classmates and drivers when to go and when not to.... [E]xperts on serial killings say that the portrait of Mr. Rader takes that notion of stability, authority and prominence in the community to a level rarely seen.

Details about Rader's public persona in Wichita before his arrest:

In May 1991, Mr. Rader was hired as a Park City compliance officer, a period one resident of this suburb just north of Wichita calls the start of the "reign of terror" for homeowners here. Mr. Rader's critics here say he seemed to sit in his truck, just waiting for something to go wrong with their houses. He took numerous photos of their homes, they said, in search of something awry....

Rhonda Reno said she watched one day as Mr. Rader wandered on the lawn of a neighbor who was ill and unable to mow the grass. Walking the grass with a yardstick, she said, he measured for infractions.

Does this mean we should wonder about people who are overly meticulous about rules? Or does it just mean that someone really good at rules would be able to evade discovery for a long time and thus have the opportunity to carry out a series of murders?

Making a gag out of a gag order.

Jay Leno finds a way around the gag order against his making gags about the Michael Jackson trial (where Leno is on the list of possible witnesses).

Podcasting in Iran.

The BBC reports:

Hossein Derakhshan admits that Iranian podcasts might not prove as influential as blogs in the short term.

But in the longer term, as podcasts become technically easier to produce and more people are able to listen to them, he says that may change. Toward that end, he says he's going to actively podcast in the lead-up to the Iranian elections this spring.

Derakhshan plans to interview Iranian scholars and journalists, both inside and outside the country, whose voices Derakhshan feels aren't heard enough.

"Anyone who takes podcasting seriously could have a very big effect, even on the elections," says Derakhshan.

"Maybe even some of the mainstream Iranian media will pick up the podcasts, and distribute them in a much broader way, to an even larger audience."