So I'm home last Friday, having my day-off flipping channels, and I come to The Dead Zone on USA Network.
Darned if there's Anthony Michael Hall, formerly known as the geek on The Breakfast Club. (A great movie for Coming of Age classes BTW, read the script here, and hear a sound clip of "the breakfast club letter" (it's the second clip down the page).
I LOVED The Breakfast Club.
And now I love it that Anthony Michael Hall has gone from a skinny geeky "brain" teenager to a large hunking handsome guy. He's another example for the late bloomers everywhere (Kevin Sorbo being another good one).
In case you haven't guessed, in the 1970's, I was a combination of the brainy geek and the basket case.
So anyway, this is an interesting episode. A prediction of sudent gun violence leads to school administration overreaction. I was all into the show, thinking that this is a cool premise, a guy who sees the future when he touches someone, and then tries to avert disaster. Just the kind of mindless binary entertainment I want on a Friday afternoon. Plus, Robert Iler is in it, and he's a great little hoodlum.
So I'm watching Hall's character stalk around a school full of mostly blond and brown haired white kids having visions of the future. He sees 25 (white) kids put on a play w/ Presidents with one or two African American kids in the background and an American flag in the foreground. He sees hallways of (white) kids running scared while another kid in baggy pants and a hoody walks around shooting at things/people. All of the speaking part characters in this episode appeared to be white.
At this point though while watching it, I thought of this school as maybe being in Colorado, it seemed like a predominantly white school, which I thought of, at that point, as just "a school" (which, honestly, from my socio-historical viewpoint usually means an automatic assumption of whiteness.)
Then comes the big conflict scene outside the school. Someone threw a bottle at the security guard who was attacking a kid. Suddenly it's a tense crowd-might-riot moment.
You can see a whole series of photos from the episode here.
I've posted two of them below.
As soon as this attack on a student by a security guard started, the camera panned the surrounding crowd in a circle for the kid that threw the bottle. All of a sudden the image is of a school full of kids of color with puffy coats and hands in pockets, and one making a gun with his fingers. African American kids, Hispanic kids, Asian kids and only a couple of white kids.
As soon as it's a "riot" scene, it's no longer an all white school.
It turns out, in the end...
SPOILER ALERT
... that the shooting was in the far future, and was a white kid trying to shoot the (white) pedophile music teacher. It was averted by (white) Anthony Michael Hall catching the (white) perv. Ultimately the (white) kid who threw the bottle was shot by the (white) security guards. But that wasn't the strongest image I was left with.
The most powerful image of the whole hour was the camera panning around in circles at the "scary" crowd, some one of which threw a bottle, then back to the security guard with the kid on the ground, and back to the "unruly" kids of color for more panning.
This rant isn't about who was identified as the perpetrators in this episode, but how the film makers constructed their pool of suspects at different points.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
my words come back to bite me
I wrote the following a few years ago about September 11th, Iraq, and President Bush; and was so proud of myself that I posted the sermon it was in to Happy Cindy.
"Sometimes I enjoy some of those earlier [spiritual development] states. I sometimes find comfort in the mythic literal faith of elementary school children in a universe where the good guys always win, its easy to tell them from the bad guys, and the answer to the bad guys is to simply “Poof!” make them go away. I’ll tell you a secret – I love shoot ‘em up movies. I get a great deal of pleasure in those films where there is a Bruce Willis or Stephen Seagal as the one guy against a gang of evildoers, or an environment-destroying corporation in Alaska.
But regardless of whatever moment of surety those bits of fiction give me; those are not the places from which I can make moral decisions for the real world. We must make our moral decisions based on the highest and best state of faith and humanity that we can. We must make our decisions based not on the comfortable or emotionally reactive state of faith, but on the appropriate one."
Several years ago I supervised a student employee for a couple of years at Hampshire College. Although I tried not to have favorites, Erin Runnion was one of mine. She was an open, loving, smart, creative young woman with a heart of gold.
She had a child, Samantha. I remember holding Samantha as an infant, and looking up from her eyes with awe and wonder and telling Erin that this girl was an Old Soul, that she was a special gift to humanity. There was something special about Samantha, and I knew it with that kind of knowing that isn't cognitive or intellectual, but a heart-knowing. I felt the gift that was Samantha, and spoke of it in a distinctly un-Cindy-like fashion.
Five years later I was flipping channels and I saw Erin Runnion on television talking about the abduction, rape, and murder of her daughter. I thought the woman looked like Erin, until she talked about the abduction. I resumed flipping, thinking to myself, "That's a terrible thing to happen to someone, I wonder why she looks so much like Erin. I won't watch any news today." It wasn't until the next morning when my brain would allow me to recognize that it really was Erin, and she was talking about Samantha.
In the time since, Erin has done what I expected her to. She's turned this into an opportunity to create peace and justice and protect children at The Joyful Child.
When this predator was caught, I found myself wishing it was Andy Sipowitz who caught him, and that Andy beat the crap out of him. Andy always said that you only beat a man when you know he's guilty, not just because you think he is. It was not a good moment in my moral development. I don't believe in police violence, ever, but there I was, wishing for it.
Over the past years I have watched the news of the trial, and was glad that the evidence so clearly showed the man guilty, and that he was convicted.
During the penalty phase, we learned of the horrific abuse and violence this man experienced himself, yet like many predators, he showed no remorse. I watched a man who had so viciously broken a little girl, who was himself broken, and I had to keep reminding myself that I have a faith in people, in a sacred continuity that spans all time and space, that connects us all.
But he broke that continuity, by his own actions. And now he's been given the death penalty, and I have the conflicting emotions I expected.
I always knew that one day my mythic-literal faith desire for Andy Sipowitz to beat the crap out of a pedophile would somehow meet a real life experience and not remain in a Sunday afternoon movie or Tuesday night (always after the Religious Education Committee meeting) NYPD Blue, and that I'd have to look carefully at the ways my moral and ethical beliefs and desires didn't always match. But I never expected it to be quite this close to home.
Someone once suggested that the proper punishment for murderers was for them to have to watch home movies of their victims for the rest of their lives -- just project them on the wall in their cell. I like that, except making a shamed, broken man more shamed or guilty isn't redemptive.
Is there redemption for him? I don't know.
I know that my desire to see him die for what he did to Samantha says more about me than it does about him. And killing him for what he did says more about us as a people than it does about him or his crime.
But if anyone should die for a crime, it should be this particular crime against children.
But I oppose the death penalty, and will continue to, even when my feelings don't match my beliefs; because these feelings are from an old, wounded place, not the place of hope, faith, and belief that humanity can do better tomorrow than we did yesterday.
I still believe this: "We must make our moral decisions based on the highest and best state of faith and humanity that we can. We must make our decisions based not on the comfortable or emotionally reactive state of faith, but on the appropriate one."
I still believe it, but I'm not quite as full of myself about it as when I wrote it about September 11th and President Bush.
"Sometimes I enjoy some of those earlier [spiritual development] states. I sometimes find comfort in the mythic literal faith of elementary school children in a universe where the good guys always win, its easy to tell them from the bad guys, and the answer to the bad guys is to simply “Poof!” make them go away. I’ll tell you a secret – I love shoot ‘em up movies. I get a great deal of pleasure in those films where there is a Bruce Willis or Stephen Seagal as the one guy against a gang of evildoers, or an environment-destroying corporation in Alaska.
But regardless of whatever moment of surety those bits of fiction give me; those are not the places from which I can make moral decisions for the real world. We must make our moral decisions based on the highest and best state of faith and humanity that we can. We must make our decisions based not on the comfortable or emotionally reactive state of faith, but on the appropriate one."
Several years ago I supervised a student employee for a couple of years at Hampshire College. Although I tried not to have favorites, Erin Runnion was one of mine. She was an open, loving, smart, creative young woman with a heart of gold.
She had a child, Samantha. I remember holding Samantha as an infant, and looking up from her eyes with awe and wonder and telling Erin that this girl was an Old Soul, that she was a special gift to humanity. There was something special about Samantha, and I knew it with that kind of knowing that isn't cognitive or intellectual, but a heart-knowing. I felt the gift that was Samantha, and spoke of it in a distinctly un-Cindy-like fashion.
Five years later I was flipping channels and I saw Erin Runnion on television talking about the abduction, rape, and murder of her daughter. I thought the woman looked like Erin, until she talked about the abduction. I resumed flipping, thinking to myself, "That's a terrible thing to happen to someone, I wonder why she looks so much like Erin. I won't watch any news today." It wasn't until the next morning when my brain would allow me to recognize that it really was Erin, and she was talking about Samantha.
In the time since, Erin has done what I expected her to. She's turned this into an opportunity to create peace and justice and protect children at The Joyful Child.
When this predator was caught, I found myself wishing it was Andy Sipowitz who caught him, and that Andy beat the crap out of him. Andy always said that you only beat a man when you know he's guilty, not just because you think he is. It was not a good moment in my moral development. I don't believe in police violence, ever, but there I was, wishing for it.
Over the past years I have watched the news of the trial, and was glad that the evidence so clearly showed the man guilty, and that he was convicted.
During the penalty phase, we learned of the horrific abuse and violence this man experienced himself, yet like many predators, he showed no remorse. I watched a man who had so viciously broken a little girl, who was himself broken, and I had to keep reminding myself that I have a faith in people, in a sacred continuity that spans all time and space, that connects us all.
But he broke that continuity, by his own actions. And now he's been given the death penalty, and I have the conflicting emotions I expected.
I always knew that one day my mythic-literal faith desire for Andy Sipowitz to beat the crap out of a pedophile would somehow meet a real life experience and not remain in a Sunday afternoon movie or Tuesday night (always after the Religious Education Committee meeting) NYPD Blue, and that I'd have to look carefully at the ways my moral and ethical beliefs and desires didn't always match. But I never expected it to be quite this close to home.
Someone once suggested that the proper punishment for murderers was for them to have to watch home movies of their victims for the rest of their lives -- just project them on the wall in their cell. I like that, except making a shamed, broken man more shamed or guilty isn't redemptive.
Is there redemption for him? I don't know.
I know that my desire to see him die for what he did to Samantha says more about me than it does about him. And killing him for what he did says more about us as a people than it does about him or his crime.
But if anyone should die for a crime, it should be this particular crime against children.
But I oppose the death penalty, and will continue to, even when my feelings don't match my beliefs; because these feelings are from an old, wounded place, not the place of hope, faith, and belief that humanity can do better tomorrow than we did yesterday.
I still believe this: "We must make our moral decisions based on the highest and best state of faith and humanity that we can. We must make our decisions based not on the comfortable or emotionally reactive state of faith, but on the appropriate one."
I still believe it, but I'm not quite as full of myself about it as when I wrote it about September 11th and President Bush.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Trying out Hello for picture posting to blogs
This is me, un re-touched.
Don't be fooled by the joy on my face, it is not indicative of my immediate mood. The photo was from a summer-time picnic with the in-laws, lots of fun people that I get to be related to without the baggage of childhood.
It only took a billion years of searching through the Hello Online Forums to find out that there is no direct way to post a photo directly to my blog profile with Hello, it only wants to send it here as a blog entry. The profile page wants a url, but Hello doesn't tell you a url.
There is, however, a work-around, which I post here for the general edification of cranky people everywhere.
First, Hello seems to hate Netscape, so use the evil demon Explorer. (I haven't tried it with Opera yet.)
Use Hello as directed, it will post your photo as a new blog entry.
Reload and view the page. Your photo will (should) be there.
Right click the pic and open into a new window.
At the top is the URL where Hello/Blogger is storing the photo.
Select the URL.
Open the blogger dashboard and go to edit your profile.
Paste the URL onto the line that asks for a URL.
Also, you may be gratified to find that finally my photograph head on this page isn't still as big as my actual head.
The other happy bit is that Hello is FREE!
Monday, January 24, 2005
Sponge Bob has SQUARE Pants
What more is there to say? Sponge Bob is a secret square. Just like Paul Lynde.
An old fashioned filthy little square. We can tell because just as Tinky Winky had a big winky on his head, Sponge Bob has square pants. Anyone can tell from the little asides, winks, and nods, that the Sponge is a Square. He doesn't drink; he'd rather binge on ice cream. He doesn't smoke. But he holds hands with the tin man, er, Patrick.
Focus on the Family has had it's sights on Sponge Bob for a while now. Cartoon characters as symbol, as representation of the terrible sign of the times, proof that "popular animated personalities are being exploited... agenda ... morally offensive" There are people who work hard to find these analogies. This excerpt is from Focus' Plugged In Online (an online magazine of Conservative Christian reviews and discussions of entertainment), an undated review of the Sponge Bob Square Pants Movie, by Marcus Yoars. I occasionally use this review site because they so completely give away the plot, content, jokes and ending, so I can informatively decide if I'm taking any of the children in my life to a movie. Most review sites work hard to give you a sense of the content without a blow by blow, but not FotF, oh no, they can really blow.
The larger issue, of course, is one which gets lost underneath this drama. It is a simple one. Which members of congress attended the incredibly partisan event, at which James Dobson, head of one of the most powerful anti-gay, anti-diversity groups in the US proclaimed this shocking announcement? Which members of congress do Mr. Dobson and the other political activists claim as their own?
The answer to the first, according to the sponsor of the event, the Family Research Council, is Senators Bill Frist (R-TN,) Sam Brownback (R-KS,) and Representatives Mike Pence (R-IN,) Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and Joe Wilson (R-SC). The second is 106. One Hundred and Six members of Congress threw a no-hitter in the eyes of the anti-diversity, anti-equity right.
The FRC press release the following morning tells you all you need to know about this event at which these congressmen and women were honored and a cartoon character vilified (should that be your perspective on gayness):
Peter Marshall: In the "Wizard of Oz," the lion wanted courage and the tin man wanted a heart. What did the scarecrow want?
Paul Lynde: He wanted the tin man to notice him.
An old fashioned filthy little square. We can tell because just as Tinky Winky had a big winky on his head, Sponge Bob has square pants. Anyone can tell from the little asides, winks, and nods, that the Sponge is a Square. He doesn't drink; he'd rather binge on ice cream. He doesn't smoke. But he holds hands with the tin man, er, Patrick.
Focus on the Family has had it's sights on Sponge Bob for a while now. Cartoon characters as symbol, as representation of the terrible sign of the times, proof that "popular animated personalities are being exploited... agenda ... morally offensive" There are people who work hard to find these analogies. This excerpt is from Focus' Plugged In Online (an online magazine of Conservative Christian reviews and discussions of entertainment), an undated review of the Sponge Bob Square Pants Movie, by Marcus Yoars. I occasionally use this review site because they so completely give away the plot, content, jokes and ending, so I can informatively decide if I'm taking any of the children in my life to a movie. Most review sites work hard to give you a sense of the content without a blow by blow, but not FotF, oh no, they can really blow.
SEXUAL CONTENT
One of the times Patrick’s bareness is beheld, he has a pole wedged between his, ahem, cheeks ... a pole with a flag labeled “SpongeBob.” (Patrick asks SpongeBob, “Did you see my butt?) Plankton gives a (male) TV reporter an adoring "look" when he asks for an interview, then coquettishly replies, “Anything for you.” SpongeBob creeps into Squidward's shower and begins scrubbing his back for him. And Patrick prances about wearing women's high-heeled boots and stockings.
It's obvious, though I’m loath to write it, that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie doesn't just allude to the building mystery surrounding its characters’ sexuality (see the Conclusion for more on this), it repeatedly plays with it. It revels in adult-minded asides that fly right over kids’ heads and straight into the disbelieving stares of parents.
“Is it just me, or do SpongeBob and Patrick act even more immature and effeminate than ever before?” asks Christianity Today movie critic Russ Breimeier. “I had to shake my head in disbelief at the site of Patrick in thigh-high leather boots and fishnet stockings—I squid you not. Do not take your kids to this if you felt that Shrek 2 was inappropriate.” Lawrence Toppman, in the Charlotte Observer, noted the peculiarities by quipping, “It took some guts to make Bob and Pat so apparently gay.”...
So when a buzz began a couple of years ago about SpongeBob being gay, I shook it off as yet another sign of his not-so-innocent times. First Bert and Ernie, then a Teletubby, now a sea sponge? I was content to hear SpongeBob’s creator, Stephen Hillenburg, vow that his animated star was not homosexually inclined. Sure, he acknowledged the gay community’s affinity for the show that periodically features SpongeBob and his (pink) best friend holding hands. But his explanation seemed to hold water. “The attitude of the show is about tolerance,” he pointed out. “Everybody is different, and the show embraces that. The character SpongeBob is an oddball. He’s kind of weird, but he’s kind of special.”
Case closed, right? Believe me, I wish it were that easy.
Not that nods to sexual uncertainty are the only trouble spots for parents to consider before allowing little ones to cozy up to Bikini Bottom.
The larger issue, of course, is one which gets lost underneath this drama. It is a simple one. Which members of congress attended the incredibly partisan event, at which James Dobson, head of one of the most powerful anti-gay, anti-diversity groups in the US proclaimed this shocking announcement? Which members of congress do Mr. Dobson and the other political activists claim as their own?
The answer to the first, according to the sponsor of the event, the Family Research Council, is Senators Bill Frist (R-TN,) Sam Brownback (R-KS,) and Representatives Mike Pence (R-IN,) Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and Joe Wilson (R-SC). The second is 106. One Hundred and Six members of Congress threw a no-hitter in the eyes of the anti-diversity, anti-equity right.
The FRC press release the following morning tells you all you need to know about this event at which these congressmen and women were honored and a cartoon character vilified (should that be your perspective on gayness):
Washington, D.C. - Last night at the Historic Willard Hotel, 106 members of Congress were honored for their unfailing commitment to protect pro-family values at the 4th Annual True Blue Awards Banquet. Among the nineteen Senators and eighty-seven House Representatives to be honored, Senators Bill Frist (R-TN,) Sam Brownback (R-KS,) and Representatives Mike Pence (R-IN,) Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and Joe Wilson (R-SC) were on hand to receive an award.
To qualify for the prestigious conservative award, members must have voted 100% in favor of a pro-family stance on a number of critical issues during the second session of the 108th Congress. Votes taken in to account include, for the House, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, rejection of legalized prostitution, protection of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and sponsorship of a Marriage Protection Amendment. In the Senate, votes included opposition of "hate crimes" legislation, approval of pro-life judge confirmation and sponsorship of a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council was on hand to present awards and Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Gary Bauer of Traditional Values and the Honorable Claude Allen took the stage as key speakers for the over 350 attendees.
Featured speaker and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist hailed the November election as an historic victory for the conservative movement. Senator Frist pointed to the election of five pro-family senators as a huge boost to overcoming filibusters to the president's judicial nominees. The majority leader announced plans to build on last year's pro-life legislative victories and vowed to push the mandate given by the "values voters" to fully protect marriage.
The Family Research Council has been kind enough to prepare a complete voting list on these issues.Don't be distracted by Sponge Bob's Squareness. The real issue is one hundred and six members of congress who voted "100% pro-family" in the last session. They voted against millions of people and their human and civil rights, Sponge Bob isn't just a sign of the times or an analogy, he's a distraction.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
More info
I heard while in the car. Like most human interactions, the issues are complex, and this points a few more of them out.
From The Tavis Smiley Show, Dr. Ian Smith, from Wed. Nov. 17th. Dr. Ian Smith, Race Specific Drugs
Of particular note is the fact that this FDA approval request will extend the patent - and therefore the high price -- on this drug. Imagine that, a pharmaceutical company finding a way to increase profits on a drug that already exists. A secondary issue that the good Mr. Jennings missed.
Without the FDA approval, Doctors could prescribe it off-lable. But once the patent runs out it becomes a cheaper co-pay, or lower cost generic.
This is an interesting in depth examination: How a Drug becomes Ethnic:
From The Tavis Smiley Show, Dr. Ian Smith, from Wed. Nov. 17th. Dr. Ian Smith, Race Specific Drugs
Of particular note is the fact that this FDA approval request will extend the patent - and therefore the high price -- on this drug. Imagine that, a pharmaceutical company finding a way to increase profits on a drug that already exists. A secondary issue that the good Mr. Jennings missed.
Without the FDA approval, Doctors could prescribe it off-lable. But once the patent runs out it becomes a cheaper co-pay, or lower cost generic.
This is an interesting in depth examination: How a Drug becomes Ethnic:
Monday, November 08, 2004
Peter Jennings is a Big Weenie
Tonight, because I was too lazy to get up and change the channel to West Wing, the administration we should have, I found myself wallowing in the murky world of the ABC Evening News. I never watch mainstream news on television, for reasons that will become obvious in a moment, preferring to read progressive papers and magazines, or watch Democracy Now.
So suddenly Peter Jennings interrupts my hard-drive-utility-upgrading by asking if researchers were unfairly using "race" to get a drug through the FDA process. "...race-consciousness offered a faster way through the FDA's regulatory maze." It seems that African Americans in particular respond to something this new drug does for those who have had heart failure. This is wonderful news for people who suffer from heart disease at a high rate.
Unfortunately, I didn't really get a good sense of what the drug does from this bit of news, because that wasn't actually what the piece was about. This piece of journalistic integrity was about calling it a "race-based therapy," and how it is wrong to target a group of people like this. It seems they fear that it might make us think that there were genetic differences between people and isn't that racist. The implication was that this single study could serve to reinvigorate a particular kind of racism that pops up in certain ultra-conservative circles every decade or so and explicitly exists in neo-nazi and white supremacist circles -- the idea that there is a definitive genetic or biological category of African American or Black folks.
Of course, that wasn't really what they meant, what they meant was "whine whine whi are we spending money on something that won't help mee ee ee." whine whine whimper.
Plus and besides which, the concept of biological racism has nothing to do with actual science, and although it comes and goes in the conservative intellegencia's publishing cycle, it's main stream America still holds on tightly to notions of white supremacy. Afterall, it's foundational to our nation.
Plus and besides which also, no other group of people have ever been studied to the detriment of others (assuming "detriment" is even the case here).
Oh wait, they have.
White men have been used to represent "average people" in medical studies for years. Not only have we extrapolated the impact of myriad of drugs from white men to white women, and men and women of color, we have also consciously limited research to white men. A quick Google search found this on the second page of results, "Now a team of researchers including members from Washington University School of Medicine has evidence that drug developers might have better luck focusing their leptin-related efforts on white men." (http://www.biostat.wustl.edu/overview/Leptin.html ) They then did so. Study white men that is. Of course, that didn't show up on the ABC Evening News, although I bet it could have, being on the second page of a google search and all.
The report didn't examine or even reference the veneer of racism that colors the lenses of doctors, the vast majority of whom are white, who don't percieve illness or treatment the same way in people of color as in white men. (Another quickly Googled search found a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that indicated "that the odds that Blacks and women presenting with chest pain would be referred for cardiac catheterization were 60 percent of those of whites and men. The disparity was most dramatic for Black women, whose odds of being referred for catheterization were 40 percent of those of white men" http://www.pww.org/past-weeks-1999/Medical%20treatment.htm )
So this ABC news piece wasn't about how fantastic it is that a group of suffering people have had some attention by the medical and pharmaceutical establishment. It wasn't so much about the science, which was articulated in a peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine published on the web today, and in print on the 11th,(http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/NEJMoa042934 ) as it was about piggybacking on a perspective piece in the same journal about "Race-Based Therapeutics." http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/NEJMp048271
That opinion piece stated, "Proponents of exploiting these biologic differences to create new race-based therapies often say this appoach treats race as a placeholder -- a crude marker for genetic variations, not yet discovered that lead to differences in responsiveness to drugs." This simple statement is likely true. The socially constructed category of race is a crude marker for anything. The social category of race is a lousy, socially created gobbledeegook. It is used to pre-judge and limit and oppress. It's been used in recent history to produce genocidal science like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. It is also a reality that race is used all the time in determining what subjects to use for research. Every time research is done on white men, it is race-based research.
But it's wonderful that someone has connected the existance of certain genetic markers in some individuals who fit into that arguably crude category of African Americans, and the possible receptiveness of those genes to this particular medicine is fabulous!
To minimize the science because saying "race as a placeholder" is so much more sexy for television is unacceptable journalism. Sure, they found a couple of talking heads to blurb a sentence or two in disagreement with that idea, those pink elephants of the invisible negative*, so what will people remember? They'll remember that studying black folks is racist and bad for America, and bad drugs will be wisked through the FDA without proper study.
If you're not with me yet, imagine this scenario:
"Proponents of exploiting these biologic differences to create new gender-based therapies often say this appoach treats gender and sex as a placeholder -- a crude marker for genetic variations, not yet discovered that lead to differences in responsiveness to drugs."
..."Sex-consciousness offered a faster way through the FDA's regulatory maze."
Can you spell V - I - A - G - R - A ?
I mean, really, popping Viagra has been a boon to women and children all over the United States. Golly, it is a good thing that they didn't study it for a particular group of people or rush it through the FDA.
Oh wait, they did.
So one minute I'm tweaking my computer, and the next thing I know Cranky Cindy is starting a blog. I should never watch mainstream news.
Keep an eye out for Happy Cindy, my other blog. I haven't written anything there yet, but it could happen...
* I frequently mock self help books, except when I find them helpful myself. I must admit to finding this one helpful so far. Drop the Pink Elephant: 15 Ways to Say What You Mean...and Mean What You Say, http://www.wiley.ca/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1841126373.html
So suddenly Peter Jennings interrupts my hard-drive-utility-upgrading by asking if researchers were unfairly using "race" to get a drug through the FDA process. "...race-consciousness offered a faster way through the FDA's regulatory maze." It seems that African Americans in particular respond to something this new drug does for those who have had heart failure. This is wonderful news for people who suffer from heart disease at a high rate.
Unfortunately, I didn't really get a good sense of what the drug does from this bit of news, because that wasn't actually what the piece was about. This piece of journalistic integrity was about calling it a "race-based therapy," and how it is wrong to target a group of people like this. It seems they fear that it might make us think that there were genetic differences between people and isn't that racist. The implication was that this single study could serve to reinvigorate a particular kind of racism that pops up in certain ultra-conservative circles every decade or so and explicitly exists in neo-nazi and white supremacist circles -- the idea that there is a definitive genetic or biological category of African American or Black folks.
Of course, that wasn't really what they meant, what they meant was "whine whine whi are we spending money on something that won't help mee ee ee." whine whine whimper.
Plus and besides which, the concept of biological racism has nothing to do with actual science, and although it comes and goes in the conservative intellegencia's publishing cycle, it's main stream America still holds on tightly to notions of white supremacy. Afterall, it's foundational to our nation.
Plus and besides which also, no other group of people have ever been studied to the detriment of others (assuming "detriment" is even the case here).
Oh wait, they have.
White men have been used to represent "average people" in medical studies for years. Not only have we extrapolated the impact of myriad of drugs from white men to white women, and men and women of color, we have also consciously limited research to white men. A quick Google search found this on the second page of results, "Now a team of researchers including members from Washington University School of Medicine has evidence that drug developers might have better luck focusing their leptin-related efforts on white men." (http://www.biostat.wustl.edu/overview/Leptin.html ) They then did so. Study white men that is. Of course, that didn't show up on the ABC Evening News, although I bet it could have, being on the second page of a google search and all.
The report didn't examine or even reference the veneer of racism that colors the lenses of doctors, the vast majority of whom are white, who don't percieve illness or treatment the same way in people of color as in white men. (Another quickly Googled search found a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that indicated "that the odds that Blacks and women presenting with chest pain would be referred for cardiac catheterization were 60 percent of those of whites and men. The disparity was most dramatic for Black women, whose odds of being referred for catheterization were 40 percent of those of white men" http://www.pww.org/past-weeks-1999/Medical%20treatment.htm )
So this ABC news piece wasn't about how fantastic it is that a group of suffering people have had some attention by the medical and pharmaceutical establishment. It wasn't so much about the science, which was articulated in a peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine published on the web today, and in print on the 11th,(http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/NEJMoa042934 ) as it was about piggybacking on a perspective piece in the same journal about "Race-Based Therapeutics." http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/NEJMp048271
That opinion piece stated, "Proponents of exploiting these biologic differences to create new race-based therapies often say this appoach treats race as a placeholder -- a crude marker for genetic variations, not yet discovered that lead to differences in responsiveness to drugs." This simple statement is likely true. The socially constructed category of race is a crude marker for anything. The social category of race is a lousy, socially created gobbledeegook. It is used to pre-judge and limit and oppress. It's been used in recent history to produce genocidal science like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. It is also a reality that race is used all the time in determining what subjects to use for research. Every time research is done on white men, it is race-based research.
But it's wonderful that someone has connected the existance of certain genetic markers in some individuals who fit into that arguably crude category of African Americans, and the possible receptiveness of those genes to this particular medicine is fabulous!
To minimize the science because saying "race as a placeholder" is so much more sexy for television is unacceptable journalism. Sure, they found a couple of talking heads to blurb a sentence or two in disagreement with that idea, those pink elephants of the invisible negative*, so what will people remember? They'll remember that studying black folks is racist and bad for America, and bad drugs will be wisked through the FDA without proper study.
If you're not with me yet, imagine this scenario:
"Proponents of exploiting these biologic differences to create new gender-based therapies often say this appoach treats gender and sex as a placeholder -- a crude marker for genetic variations, not yet discovered that lead to differences in responsiveness to drugs."
..."Sex-consciousness offered a faster way through the FDA's regulatory maze."
Can you spell V - I - A - G - R - A ?
I mean, really, popping Viagra has been a boon to women and children all over the United States. Golly, it is a good thing that they didn't study it for a particular group of people or rush it through the FDA.
Oh wait, they did.
So one minute I'm tweaking my computer, and the next thing I know Cranky Cindy is starting a blog. I should never watch mainstream news.
Keep an eye out for Happy Cindy, my other blog. I haven't written anything there yet, but it could happen...
* I frequently mock self help books, except when I find them helpful myself. I must admit to finding this one helpful so far. Drop the Pink Elephant: 15 Ways to Say What You Mean...and Mean What You Say, http://www.wiley.ca/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1841126373.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
