anniemiz

Helping the Womens' Group in Basra

I blogged recently about the murder of Leila Hussein, the mother of Rand Abdel-Qader, a 17 yo girl who was murdered by her father for having a crush on a British soldier in Iraq.  Hussein had divorced and left her husband after their daughter's murder.  A womens' group in Basra hid Hussein and was trying to smuggle her out of the country for her own safety.  She was murdered as she and two women from the group were moving her from one place to another along her escape.  The two women with Hussein were also shot, but they survived.  In my earlier post I said:

More importantly, I don't know what can be done.  Several commenters on the Feministe thread express frustration at the seemingly non-existent assistance one can give to women like Rand and Leila.  I used to volunteer on the help line at a womens' shelter (also at a nursing home and an animal shelter, but it's the womens' shelter volunteering that I miss most; I miss the cats at the shelter, but I do not miss all the cleaning, the scooping, the stinking, the  medicating, the feeding, etc. etc., in short, all the dirty work; with 6 cats, I get enough of that at home nowadays) and my contributions were always visible, measurable, etc.  I knew that I was helping people, that I was getting the right information to the people who needed it, that I was listening to people who needed to talk, etc.  Direct assistance is surely not the only way to help others, but women suffering under oppressive patriarchal societies seem so far away, so unreachable, so untouchable to those outside the society willing to help (and, to a lesser extent, probably to those within as well).  One commenter had several suggestions, most of which I'll call 'administrative', although I do not mean to suggest anything negative about them.  I'll guess that the most effective suggestion would be the economic one: boycott offending countries.  So, unfortunately, I have nothing practical to offer.

I received the following email from a reader:

I realize there is no shortage of ghastly events everywhere that demand our attention but each of us is especially touched by one or other. The case of  Leila Hussein has been hammering round my head since Sunday. She vanished very quickly from the press and is remembered in just a few blogs. I wrote to Al- Jazeera to ask why there was no coverage but have received no reply. It occurred to me that maybe a teeshirt campaign would take off - I imagined millions of people wearing her image to demonstrate that her courage was not forgotten and to show the Islamic world that we are disgusted and outraged and perhaps to encourage sensitive and intelligent Muslims to wear it also to distance themselves from such practices.  Letters have been written to the authorities in Basra to press for the arrest of the father and brothers but I feel this campaign could address the issue in another way. What do you think?

 

Thing is, I don't really know enough to know what a good idea is in this situation.  Around this time, Feminist Philosophers blogged about Hussein's murder.  Figuring the folks over there would be more hooked into how to help women like Hussein and Abdel-Qader, I shared my frustration and my reader's suggestion in their comments section.  One of FP's bloggers pointed to this link over at Jezebel, about how to get funds to the Basra womens' group, which has shut down bco the danger.  Group members have received death threats and are trying to get themselves out of Iraq.

 

Jezebel readers have somehow managed to send $1,700 to the group.  Not sure how they did it; PayPalling Jezebel was involved; I think it went through somebody in the UK bco potential problems with U.S. types sending money to Iraq.  Anyway, I'm checking in on that post occasionally to see if they're still collecting funds and will be sending over another chunk o' cash.  Of course, this may help these women escape Iraq and potential death, but won't do anything for the women who remain.  That still remains a challenge and I'm still interested in good ideas about how to help them.

 

BTW, here's Afif Sarhan's blog.  I think it was Sarhan who first reported on Rand's murder.

Leila Hussein, Mother of 'Honor' Killing Victim, Is Herself Murdered

I blogged recently about the 'honor' killing in Iraq of 17 yo Rand Abdel-Qader.  Rand was killed by her father, Abdel-Qader Ali, when he learned that she had become infatuated by a British soldier, 'Paul' while she was volunteering to help fellow Iraqis in Basra.  He learned this 4 months after she had last conversed with Paul.  Apparently, she had chatted with Paul briefly a few times over several months.  When Abdel-Qadar began assaulting Rand, her mother, Leila Hussein, called Rand's two brothers for help, as in to stop her husband.  Instead, they joined in.  Rand was stomped upon, suffocated and stabbed to death.  Abdel-Qadar was arrested by Iraqi police, but released within 2 hours.  He has not been charged with any crime.  He claims that police congratulated him on his actions.  From the Guardian UK (also linked in my original post):

Abdel-Qader, 46, a government employee, was initially arrested but released after two hours. Astonishingly, he said, police congratulated him on what he had done. 'They are men and know what honour is,' he said.

Hussein divorced Abdel-Qadar two weeks after the killing, at which point he broke her arm while beating her.  She went into hiding and was being helped by one of the few womens' rights groups in Iraq.  The group was trying to get Hussein out of Iraq.  Feministe tells us that Leila Hussein has also been murdered.  Again, from the Guardian UK:

Leila Hussein lived her last few weeks in terror. Moving constantly from safe house to safe house, she dared to stay no longer than four days at each. It was the price she was forced to pay after denouncing and divorcing her husband - the man she witnessed suffocate, stamp on, then stab their young daughter Rand in a brutal 'honour' killing for which he has shown no remorse.

Though she feared reprisals for speaking out, she really believed that she would soon be safe. Arrangements were well under way to smuggle her to the Jordanian capital, Amman. In fact, she was on her way to meet the person who would help her escape when a car drew up alongside her and two other women who were walking her to a taxi. Five bullets were fired: three of them hit Leila, 41. She died in hospital after futile attempts to save her.

The two women helping her were hit with one bullet each.  The womens' rights group to which they belonged has since stopped their work, citing the danger:

Since the attack the NGO has stopped its work in Basra. 'We daren't answer the phones because we have received so many threats since we gave our support to Leila's case,' said Mariam [one of the two women with Hussein at the time of the attack]. 'Most of our members are preparing to leave the city and even Iraq if they can raise the money.'

...

Mariam has moved out of her home. But within hours of speaking to The Observer a close friend went to her new address to deliver a message that had been left for her at her front door. It read: 'Death to betrayers of Islam who don't deserve God's forgiveness. Speaking less you will live more.' She believes it was sent by Leila's killers.

This whole business of female 'honor' seems so odd to me, for several reasons (and yes, I realize that several of these points stem from my own cultural background which is itself foreign to cultures in which these murders are condoned):

1. The idea that an individual's honor is connected to/defined by another individual seems so counter-intuitive.
2. These murders are about control, not honor, religious purity, Islam, etc. Yes, the murderers hide behind Islam (like so many murderers have hidden behind so many religions for ages), but one can be Muslim without condoning honor killings. Of course, extremists will say that such people aren't real Muslims.  I wouldn't be surprised if many, many extremist men who think that they're defending Islam ('true' Islam, of course) don't realize that they themselves have been formed by generations of cultural manipulation.  I'm not expressing this well, let me try again: They think they're being good Muslims, i.e., they think they're acting religiously out of their own piety, when really they're acting culturally.
3. It strikes me as odd that, in such a very patriarchal society, the actions of one woman - a society in which women are worthless, female births are occasions for sorrow instead of joy - have such power over the men in her family.
4. Besides being about control, there's something here that suggests fear. Perhaps it's fear that, by not supporting concepts such as female honor, men will lose control over women.  When a woman steps outside the bounds, it ignites this fear and the transgressor must be extinguished a) before she does any damage to male control and/or b) so that others see her fate as a deterrent (similar to how capital punishment is supposed to serve as a deterrent in the U.S.).

The commenters on the Feministe thread about Husseins' murder are mostly anti-honor killing, feminist, etc.  There is one dissenting commenter, 'Syed'.  Now, other commenters wonder if Syed is who he appears to be, i.e., a Muslim man who supports Rand's honor killing, but not necessarily Hussein's murder.  Some suggest that he may be a troll posing as such so as to make Islam come off badly in a public forum.  Here I'll take Syed's comments at face value.  His first comment:

While I understand that the murder of the wife should be prosecuted, the daughter’s killing is justified in Islam which was their religion and while it may appear strange to westerners, they should not worry too much about it just as Muslim countries leave the strange Western practices alone. In Islam, it is forbidden for a woman to be alone with or talk unnecessarily to a man that is not related to her. The punishment prescribed by the Holy Quran can go from imprisonment until she repents upto death. We are not privy to what went between her father, who must have loved her, and her before her death and we should refrain from speculating.

From another comment:

Only that which is given in Quran matters as that is the unaltered will of Allah.

Annnnnd:

It is just the way it is. There are consequences for actions. They may appear harsh but there is a reason they were ordained that way.

These comments, and this view in general, strike me as odd for, again, at least several reasons:

• Allah is (I presume) the source of all creation, including humans, who have powers of reason. The above interpretation of Islam suggests blind adherence to the Quran, i.e., no further thought is required. Perhaps reason can be applied to non-religious matters (if there are any; perhaps everything can be religiousized[?]), but never to religious matters.
• Strict adherence (read: blind obedience) to the Quran is necessary. How was this decided? Perhaps somebodies, somewhere, sometime along the way, reasoned that that was the thing to do. But is that still human reasoning involved in the very fundamentals aspects, in the establishment of Islam?
• Or perhaps the Quran itself mandates strict adherence. But a lot of Muslims interpret Islam and the Quran in a lot of different ways. Even such a mandate could be interpreted with widely divergent results. If determining the meaning of text is an exercise in reason, then even those who say they're following the letter of such a mandate in the Quran (again, I don't know that there is one) are actually reasoning about the meaning of said mandate.
• If there's any reasoning involved in following the Quran, isn't there room then to wonder if one's got it wrong?  I suppose one could argue that one's interpretation is the correct one, but then there's that reasoning again.
• These bullets point are not an argument.  In fact, there are inconsistences among them. There are also other factors that should be considered, e.g., what role does free will play in Islam and in the interpretation of the Quran?  (That particular question is too large to deal with here.)

I don't have any answers to these questions.  More importantly, I don't know what can be done.  Several commenters on the Feministe thread express frustration at the seemingly non-existent assistance one can give to women like Rand and Leila.  I used to volunteer on the help line at a womens' shelter (also at a nursing home and an animal shelter, but it's the womens' shelter volunteering that I miss most; I miss the cats at the shelter, but I do not miss all the cleaning, the scooping, the stinking, the  medicating, the feeding, etc. etc., in short, all the dirty work; with 6 cats, I get enough of that at home nowadays) and my contributions were always visible, measurable, etc.  I knew that I was helping people, that I was getting the right information to the people who needed it, that I was listening to people who needed to talk, etc.  Direct assistance is surely not the only way to help others, but women suffering under oppressive patriarchal societies seem so far away, so unreachable, so untouchable to those outside the society willing to help (and, to a lesser extent, probably to those within as well).  One commenter had several suggestions, most of which I'll call 'administrative', although I do not mean to suggest anything negative about them.  I'll guess that the most effective suggestion would be the economic one: boycott offending countries.  So, unfortunately, I have nothing practical to offer.

I'll leave you with pictures of Leila and Rand, both of whom are now dead, murdered by religious/patriarchal extremists.

Leila Hussein:

Rand Abdel-Qader:

Memorial Day, Now & Then

Our Memorial Day this year reminded me very much of Memorial Days (and other national holidays) from when I was a kid.  We had a quiet long weekend.  My friend/co-worker/neighbor, Stephanie, kindly invited us to a shindig at her home, which was a lot of fun; she had a great day for it, too.  Kevin worked on the dining room quite a bit.  I started a new knitting project.  We both did some stuff around the house.  I spent a bit of time on the front porch, enjoying the fine weather.

Memorial Days of my youth went something like this: 1) guests show up; 2) bring chairs and selves down to Main Street to watch the Memorial Day parade (sometimes march in said parade); 3) go back home to eat burgers, dogs and yer basic picnic stuff; 4) run around outside like a nut for a few hours; 5) eat ice cream and watermelon; 6) run around some more; 7) feel sickly; 8) go to bed with towels and a bucket nearby.

It was pretty quiet once the parade was over.  Neighbors were either home having picnics or away at picnics.  Most businesses were closed.  A few grocers might be open until noonish.  One or two gas stations in town might be open for part of the day.  Restaurants were closed.  It may have been disappointing to find that Oh noes!!1! we forgot marshmallows! and not be able to go to the store to get them, but by all accounts, most people who went without marshmallows survived.

Now pretty much everything is open, it's business as usual on national holidays.  I'm a little embarrassed to admit it, but we went grocery shopping on Monday, Memorial Day.  Sure, it's convenient to have another day on which to go grocery shopping and it was quieter there and so we got through faster, but I now wish we had gone over the weekend.

A few years ago I decided to avoid doing everyday stuff like grocery shopping on big holidays.  I missed the forced stoppage when things just shut down at the holidays.  At the time, that's just how things were.  Now, I look back and think it was unintentionally brilliant.  Having fewer options was actually beneficial in that it pretty much forced people to slow down, take the day off and maybe even spend it having fun with friends and family.

Yes, I can achieve the same effect by just going ahead and spending the day having fun with friends and family.  But it's sure a lot more likely to happen when a lot of other options are off my table and when these options are off everyone's tables.

Sometimes too much is too much.  I'm embarrassed, in a way, when I go grocery shopping and see all the permutations of orange juice available.  With vitamin D; with calcium; no pulp; some pulp; all pulp; heart healthy; for kids (whatever that is); less acid; no acid; with antioxidants; brain healthy; with glucosamine; and on and on and on....  And that's just the OJ!  I'm embarrassed bc such overabundance of products is overkill upon overkill.  It makes me think that the American public must be such pansies if they need or simply want such narrowly focussed products.  Who are the people buying rubbery shark-shaped fruit-like kids' snacks?  My outer curmudgeon suggests skipping that crap and eating the actual fruit instead.  I've heard people say that their kids won't eat fruit any other way.  Tough crap, kid.  Life isn't a box of rubbery animal-shaped cherry-fascimilies; get used to it.  I've said it before and, rest assured, I will say it again: you don't do your kids any favors by granting their every whim.  Now, who doesn't want to make the kids they love happy?  You want to raise a happy kid, but you also want to raise a decent human being and that doesn't come about by spoiling the stuffing out of them and, beyond a certain age, buying foods for them different from everyone else's food.  It's the shopping equivalent of not making a separate dinner for each person.  Yes, yes, make your kid's/SO's/cats'/whatever's favorite foods, just don't become a caterer in your own home.

Now I'm not saying grocery stores should resemble Soviet-era stores.  The onslaught of choices at the grocery store is just one area in which there's much too much.  The current recession has had the silver lining of slowing down some of our national consumer stupidity.  Sometimes I feel like I'm in another world with the din of consumerism and waste all around: commercials spouting off about 'must have' cashmere scarves (there is no such thing), people buying the biggest vehicle they could find, convenience items and foods out the ying yang; etc.  Yes, this is the first world, but at times it feels otherworldly.

Before I end this rant, I'd like to point you to Crazy Aunt Purl's, who's written two posts recently about over-consumerism:  Mid Year Resolution and And just what is essential anyway?  I've been thinking a lot about this stuff lately and her posts say much of what I think and feel, but in a much better way.

Looking for Someone to Listen To

You know, I just don't know what, or perhaps it's how, to think about some things.  Via Feminist Philosophers, I read in their post, Deadly Crush, about the 'honor' killing of Rand Abdel-Qader, a 17 yo Iraqi girl.  She was killed by her father and two uncles bc she had become friendly with a 22 yo British soldier, 'Paul', in Basra.   She and Paul met when she volunteered to work with the needy of Basra.  I don't know if Paul was also a volunteer or if it was part of his job as a soldier.  Apparently, it wasn't much of a relationship.  It sounds like she had a crush on him and their interaction consisted of a chat here and there.

And that was sufficient cause for her father to murder her.  From a Guardian article:

Rand, who was studying English at Basra University, was deemed to have brought shame on her family after becoming infatuated with a British soldier, 22, known only as Paul.

What I do and do not think:

• I do think this was a heinous murder and that the father and uncles should be punished for killing the girl.
• I don't think this happened bc Islam is inherently a crazy religion, although I do believe that it may be irrational to believe in any religion (haven't decided on that score yet).
• I do think this happened, in part, bc these individuals believe their religion, as they practice and interpret it, supports their actions.
• I do think this happened, in part, bc the society in which these individuals live, a society which is heavily influenced by a central religion, supports their actions.

Longtime readers will recall that I have not developed final thoughts on religion.  I understand the pull, the attraction of religion.  I see religion as fulfilling a psychological role for people: it provides comfort, hope and the like.  I've often thought of the so-called positive psychological roles provided by religion.  Yet religion also provides what I consider negative roles.  The above killing has nothing to do with 'honor' and everything to do with controlling women.

There's a lot of talk about tolerance: religious, sexual, cultural, etc.  It's relatively easy to be tolerant of non-extreme views.  I might think they're unfounded, irrational, impractical or the like, but as long as they don't cross a line-determined-by-me, I can tolerate them.  That's no big achievement, since I don't really give up much to tolerate them.

I cannot tolerate a view that:

• controls the bodies and thoughts of women and girls - half the population;
• abuses to the point of murder the bodies of women and girls;
• values women and girls - again, half the population! - so little;
• calculates familial honor on individual honor.

I could go on, but I'm sure  you get the point.

Yes, I understand that there are moderate and liberal Muslims who decry honor killings, the societies that support honor killings and the interpretations of Islam used to justify honor killings.  But where are they and their condemnation of honor killings?

OTOH, why should I or anyone else look to moderate and liberal Muslims to condemn honor killings?  What obligation, if any, do these people have to voice their condemnation?  E.g., in the U.S., if a fundie Christian murders an abortion provider, Christians of all stripes (except those shared by the fundie murderer) condemn the murder.  Just bc that happens here doesn't mean it should happen anywhere.

OTOH, I think anybody who very publicly brooks fundie Islam greatly risks death, injury, ruin, etc., not only to themselves, but to their family and friends.  I can sit here and type, Why aren't they speaking up?, seeing as I'm not the one who's going to be murdered for speaking against fundie Islam.

OTOH, I wonder if moderate and liberal Muslims are speaking out and I'm just not exposed to it.  Are such protestations covered in non-U.S. media?  Non-western media?  If so, I would be most interested in being directed to such coverage.

At bottom, if moderate and liberal Muslims are not speaking out in significant number, I wonder what it is that keeps them from doing so.  Fear of retribution?  Loyalty to fellow religionists, no matter how extreme?  Apathy?  Familial and/or cultural pressures?  I wonder if it's the case that, bc I know so little about Muslim societies, there are disincentives to speaking out of which I'm unaware?  Insights are most welcome.

Earnestness Avoided

So anyhoo...........just hanging out, wiiiiiiiiiiiiide awake, wondering what to blog about.  I have a number of things to write about, but I don't have the inclination to go into anything remotely heavy right now.  E.g., I want to write about earnestness; demands on/requests for one's earnestness; how to best distribute one's earnestness; how to best distribute societal earnestness; etc.  E.g., Alas, A Blog is on my blogroll.  The peeps there post about a lot of issues.  Some of the issues are important to me.  Often, there are interesting posts about these issues.  Yet more often than not, I end up avoiding Alas, A Blog and head straight to Apostropher in the hopes that the folks there have posted something that will make me laugh.  Or at least not bring me down.

Yes, I agree that: racism sux; sexism sux; poverty sux; the war in Iraq sux beyond belief; that stuff sux sux; etc.  But a person could get all the way from waking to retiring dealing with the vast vastness of suckitude that affects the issues they consider important.  I feel that, if I think an issue is important, I should keep current.  And do something on behalf of the cause.  But just reading the current stuff about important issues could take me from morning to night.  I can't be doing that.  (a) It's unproductive.  (b) What a fucking drag.  And no, I don't expect issues like sexism, racism, etc. to be entertaining, but I also don't want to spend my waking hours on a permanent downer.

And then I think, Is it wrong to want to be happy most of the time?  There are people who ignore the niceties of life iot devote more of their time and effort toward The Cause.  I know those people are out there bc they've shared their passion and enthusiasm with me (and others).  I know they're out there bc I've seen the sacrifices they've made iot better serve The Cause.  I know they're out there bc I've smelled them.  But I don't want to sacrifice such niceties of life as those that keep one's body odor at a socially acceptable level and one's teeth in situ.  Call me shallow, but it makes me happy to have a few cats, a decent home, regular dental care and Dial soap (among yes, so many other things).  I thought it doesn't take much to make me happy, but when I think about all the important things that need to be addressed and how much work it would take...maybe I could have a smell sandiwch* for lunch all week long?

But like I said, I don't want to blog about this right now.  So, what else is new?  The carpet cleaners come tomorrow to try and save the carpet upon which HG spewed his unearthly leavings.  That linked photo, btw, does not do the spew justice.  We moved the bed out of the guest room tonight, which should have the happy consequence of making it easier for the carpet guys to do their mojo in there.  It did have the unhappy consequence of revealing a CSI-worthy splatter of what I think is Yoohoo.  Does it strike anyone else as odd that a grown man drinks Yoohoo?  And why would one drink Yoohoo when one could put chocolate syrup in milk and drink something that actually tastes good?  As an aside, HG would often buy Hershey's chocolate milk.  Now I don't want to discourage anyone from buying Hershey anything (I have a little stock in it; your Hershey purchases will contribute in a small, but much appreciated, way to my retirement**), but I did mention that we had Hershey's chocolate syrup and he should feel free to use it to add to his milk and make chocolate milk.  Milk is expensive.  (I read an article recently about the recent increase in food costs.  Recently. Dairy prices have increased 11% since this time last year.)  Chocolate milk is even more expensive and stupidly so.  Does HG think making chocolate milk is a good idea?  No.  Why?  Bc apparently anything that would save him money and make him less poor is a bad idea.  He didn't actually say that; I attribute that reasoning to him bc I also don't know why he'd spend $100/week on cigarettes and an untold amount on scratch off lottery tickets when he can barely afford pain medication, but wtf do I know?

In other news, although I continue knitting squares for Kevin's afghan, I have decided to interject a new knitting project: a baby blanket.  I like alternating texture, like in this baby blanket.  There's a little of that going on in Kevin's afghan, too.  I hope to finish the blanket before niece #7 is born.  I make no promises, however, as I previously tried to knit a baby blanket for an impending baby and it's still incomplete years later.  Thing is, wrt that blanket, it was one of the first things I tried to knit and, quite simply, it wasn't on.  So many mistakes!  So many dropped stitches!  So many lost counts!  It's a wonder I found the fortitude to pick up needles and yarn again.  Although an experienced knitter would consider the pattern easy, it was probably too involved for my first project.  I'm a better knitter now; I hope it will go a little better and faster.  I ordered the same type of yarn as the linked knitter used, but in lilac.  Actually, I thought I decided on yellow (such a happy color), but my order confirmation tells me otherwise.  Although ultrasound indicates that niece #7 is a girl, I thought it best to hedge my bets color-wise bc it ain't over til the pregnant lady screams.  Plus, girls get so much pink stuff thrown at them in life (oh, that's another thing that sux: pink oppression) that I loathe to add to it.

And that reminds me of something else I consider blogging about: So often I hear/read people talk about what little girls like/want/expect/dream about/etc.  And so often it's so not my experience.  Pink was never my favorite color; red was my favorite color for the longest time.  It might still be, although I must say I've grown quite partial to green, so much so that I can no longer be certain of my own favorite color.  The whole princess industry passed me by: thoroughly uninterested in being a princess.  Fairy tale weddings?  No interest.  Furthermore, I lacked (and continue to lack) any comprehension as to why one would like or want, nay, dream about this stuff.  So yeah, sometimes I've considered blogging about my lack of girly cred.

So I've basically just blogged about some things I didn't want to blog about.  I'm off to knit a few afghan squares and then call it a night before I start thinking about Issues of Great Import that require Immediate Attention.

*From one of the Tightwad Gazette books, a compilation of Gazette issues.  A reader sent this in as a way to save money on lunch (based on a Monday-Friday work week):

1. Sunday night, make this sandwich: mayo (or some other condiment, e.g., mustard), salami, cheese (go crazy), on bread.  Lettuce, tomato, etc. are okay, too.
2. Monday morning: Remove the salami and cheese.  Spread mayo on two new slices of bread.  Put the salami and cheese in between the new slices of bread.  Lettuce, tomato, etc. as desired.  Wrap this new sandwich and put in fridge.  Take the 'smell sandwich' of mayo, bread, lettuce, tomato, etc. to work for lunch. 
3. Tuesday through Thursday mornings: Repeat Monday.
4. Friday: indulge and take the whole sandwich to work for lunch.

**Why have stock in Hershey's, you ask?  I like to invest in stuff I like or at least like the idea.  E.g., I like Reese's peanut butter cups.  No, actually, I loooooovvvve Reese's peanut butter cups.  Those miniature ones are the death of me.  I can eat them like potato chips.  I think the saltiness of the peanut butter and the sweetness of the chocolate are set exactly so that the saltiness makes me want to eat something sweet and vice versa.  It's a vast confectional conspiracy.  I've also had stock in Rubbermaid (good products); Kellogg's (I ate their cereal); Coca Cola (anyone who knows me IRL knows of my most violent affections toward diet Coke).  IIRC, I have stock in Celgene, a biopharmaceutical company.  One of their products is Thalomid.  Yes, thalidomide.  It's now used for multiple myeloma.  I think I have some stock in some other bio company that does some cool stuff like grow body parts out of some cool bio-material.  I may not have that anymore.  My investment advisor has my permission to buy and sell, so I'll have to ask him about that before he leaves for work tomorrow morning.

Don't Know How That Happened

Hmmmph.  Somehow my post, The Ashley Treatment, was linked to in a list of bloggers against Ashley's treatment.  Despite the list's title, they do include at the bottom links to blogs that are not against it.  Those links are marked w/a thumbs down graphic.  My post doesn't have a thumbs down.  Reading over my post again, it's a little ambivalent, certainly when compared to other blog posts.  Sympathetic, too.  I don't think it could be interpreted as against the treatment.

There's an interesting post,The Ashley Treatment: A Feminist and Disability Rights Issue?, on Alas, A Blog.  Lots of back and forth in the comments section.  Towards the end, it gets a little frustrating.  There's a commenter, 'Jane Hill',who is very passionately against the treatment.  Her passion makes me want to understand her position -I'm also curious about what's driving it - but I find it difficult to make out exactly what is her argument.  She has tons of comments there; some responding to other comments and questions, some new material.  Some of her comments do not help her position: likening oppposing commenters and their views to Hitler and his ideas is almost never good for furthering debate.

I often wonder what's the right and/or best way to discuss divisive questions like this treatment, abortion, capital punishment, etc.  Especially when it's something that could or does affect the public.  Personally, I find tactics such as Jane's very frustrating.  I would like to at least get a sense of a person's main argument, even just in list form, and then discuss from there.  Comments that include slight shifts in position,  distractions, ALL CAPS, hyperbole, etc. just confuse the issue.  It also doesn't help the position.

If your goal is to change public opinion and/or policy, does it matter how it's done?  Maybe it's enough to throw out sound bites that stick in people's heads.  Maybe it makes sense to take a marketing approach and commercialize your view.  There's a billboard in town that has a picture of a baby on it, the text, 'What!  Embryos are babies.' and the name of the sponsoring organization.  That's it.  Maybe it's enough to put your view out there as fact and/or repeat it enough so that it begins to take on facticity(?).

If your goal is to get an answer or as close to an answer as possible, I don't know that the marketing approach is best.  But the sane discussion approach is dull and takes time and effort.  Who has the time and energy to fully analyze and discuss every single issue that might impact their lives or on which they might have an opinion?  I'd never do anything but analyze and discuss stuff if I tried to do that.  That's okay for some, but I'd like to go outside once in a while.

Believing that a certain view is the best view for a situation, public policy, etc. is separate from pushing for that view in that situation, policy, etc.  If you believe X, do you have an obligation to forward that view?  Do you have an obligation to figure out what you do believe on every single issue that might impact your life or on which you might have an opinion?  Even if you do have that obligation (and where would it come from?), what should you actually do, given that you can't possibly address all those issues properly?

Obviously, I'm just typing out my piehole as I think here.  It's very frustrating to have people yelling back and forth at each other instead of actually discussing the views.  So much other stuff gets in the way: exaggeration, innuendo, outright insults, distraction, shifting goal posts (my personal favorite unfavorite move), etc.  Of course, this is all very subjective.  Others may flourish under such conditions.  Me, I'd be delighted, nay, ecstactic, if a conversant would speak plainly and just put out there what they think...and why.  Then answer questions and offer clarification, again, plainly...and why.  If they want to bring up something else, great, but, again, clearly explain what it is they're trying to say...and why.  But that's dull.  And it doesn't allow for much personal investment in the argument - unless you happen to be dull.  (Hmm.  I guess that makes me dull.  Oh well.  Like that's news.)

In other news, I guess I haven't got much to offer in the way of suggestions for making public discussions more effective (depending on what your desired effect is).  Maybe I'll just go break up a cat fight.

The Ashley Treatment

Huh.  Another interesting medical ethical dilemma.  Last month, there was a NYT article about parents with disabilities using fertility technology to intentionally select embryos with the same disability.  Now there's this AP article at msnbc.com about the parents of a severely mentally and physically disabled 9yo girl.  The parents chose for the girl to have surgery and receive hormone treatment to stunt her growth.  The parents have a website where they present the case: reasons, procedures, results, etc.  An excerpt:

We want to avoid sensationalism or philosophical debates about what we did and why we did it. We’d rather care for and enjoy Ashley than get into endless debates. In our opinion, only parents with special-needs children are in a position to fully relate to this topic. Unless you are living the experience, you are speculating and you have no clue what it is like to be the bedridden child or their caregivers. Furthermore, in the case of the female aspects of the treatment, women are in a better position to relate to these aspects and the benefits for which they are intended.

Yay for avoiding sensationalism.  I'm all for discussing the philosophical issues involved here, but I have no desire to hold the parents to any conclusions.  I was a bit shocked when I first read the article, but that was mostly due to the fact that I'd never heard of such treatment, i.e., that it was new and fangled.  (Apparently, some aspects of the treatment are not new, just not well-known.  The website mentions something about growth-stunting treatments of the 60's and 70's when it was undesirable for girls to be tall.  Ack.  Maybe that's what happened to me.  I want my homones back!)

Anyway, so it's sort of new and it's a bit startling.  Drastic.  Permanent.  It brings up some of the same concerns as the disability selection article, e.g., making permanent choices for people who are in no position to state or have no ability to have an opinion on their own treatment.  Of course, there's the major difference of choosing to have a disabled child versus having a disabled child naturally (naturally?  accidentally?  in the normal course of things?).

What to think about the 'Ashley Treatment'?  This guy weighs in that it's wrong:

I understand the parents’ logic. And I can even understand how a medical team might come to agree that a person who cannot move will have a better life small than big.  But I think the Peter Pan option is morally wrong.

I believe it is true that it is easier to move Ashley about if she is the size of a 6-year-old. But I also believe that a decent society should be able to provide appropriately sized wheelchairs and bathtubs and home-health assistance to families like this one. Keeping Ashley small is a pharmacological solution for a social failure — the fact that American society does not do what it should to help severely disabled children and their families.

True, it may be better if Ashley does not become sexually developed in terms of protecting her from attack. But that can be said of any woman. To surgically remove her breasts is simply to maim her in a way that ought not be done. She needs a safe environment at home and if the day comes, a safe environment in an institution. Lopping off her breasts to keep her safe cannot be the right or the only answer.

There are many parents and families who deal with severely disturbed children and adolescents. More than once a parent of a child with severe autism has told me they do not know if they can physically manage their child. Others worry about their children harming themselves or others due to their mental illnesses or disorders.

The problems Ashley and her parents face are terribly real. But permanently freezing a person into childhood is not the solution. Families like Ashley’s need more help, more resources, more breaks from the relentless pressure of providing care and some hope that their daughter can be somewhere safe and caring after they are gone. 

America has not yet made that promise to Ashley or her parents or the many other parents and kids who face severely disabling mental illness and impairment. We should.

The  msnbc.com message board on the topic currently has approximately 1,400 posts.  I've only read a few bc I get pissed off at the comments that clearly indicate that the authors haven't read past the one article.  Those would be the comments along the lines of 'I would never do this to any child of mine!'  Now you can probably guess where my opinion falls.

Back to the Caplan dude.  Check out the first quoted paragraph.  He can understand the parents' logic.  Okay.  He can understand how medical types would agree that a severely disabled person's quality of life would be better as a smaller-sized person.  But it's still morally wrong.  Why is that?  It's bc there are other options that (he thinks) should be available, but aren't.  The options that should be are the ones the parents should take.  I know this is going to sound terribly Rumsfeldian, but such parents make their decisions based on what is, not what should be (whatever that might be and whoever might be determining it).  I don't mean that at all as callously as Rumsfeld's comment sounded.  I just wonder how can it be morally wrong to not take an option that doesn't exist.  The treatment in question is time-sensitive.  If they're going to do it all, do they wait until a decent society provides what Caplan thinks it should?  I'm usually an optimistic person, but I wouldn't be surprised if anyone reading this were dead by the time all that good stuff happens (if it happens at all).  So the context in which the parents are making this decision is not a context in which certain desirable options actually exist.  I would think that actual options are an important part of the moral calculation.

Moving on.  Wrt breast removal and the same business being said about any woman: Yes, all women are vulnerable to sexual assault.  All people are.  Ashley is so not any woman.  IIRC, Ashley has and always will have the mental age of an infant.  Healthy adult women can decide for themselves if and how they want to deal with the realities of sexual assault risk (and personal violence in general).  A young women in NYC might carry pepper spray, live in as secure a building as she can afford, call her friend when she gets home late at night, etc.  Or she can say, 'Fuck it.  I'm not a victim.  I'll live my life the way we should all be able to live our lives.'  When she's 75yo, she might house-share with a friend, call a relative regularly, have one of those things she can press when she's fallen and can't get up, etc.  Or she can continue to say, 'Fuck it....'

Ashely cannot do that.  She may well outlive her parents.  Her siblings, for whatever reason (and I won't go into them here bc that would be a whole 'nuther ball o' wax), may not care for her at home.  She ends up in an institution.  Even the loveliest and most conscientious of institutions cannot guarantee that Ashley will not ever be sexually (or otherwise) assaulted in any way.  Who can guarantee that?  It could happen when the most loving of parents leave her at home with a carefully screened caregiver for two hours.  Perhaps 'Lopping off her breasts to keep her safe cannot be the right or the only answer.'  But what is the answer then?  Trusting that it won't happen?  I'm not entirely comfortable with removing breast tissue so breasts don't develop.  Sexual assault and 'sexualization' of Ashley in the eyes of caregivers were just two of the considerations surrounding breast tissue removal (comfort and a family history of breast cancer were others).  But if Caplan doesn't like it, it's hardly helpful to say it's wrong w/o offering the parents some other option they can take.

Along with breast development comes menstruation.  At first I thought, 'Well, what's the big deal about menstruation?'  Admittedly, I've been lucky in that department, especially as long as I've been on bc pills.  I start menstruating every fourth Tuesday between 10:20 - 11:50 am and it seems like I'm done 20 minutes later.  Not really, of course, but it's been a breeze.  But it is painful for some.  Perhaps Ashley's parents could have waited to see how she does and, if she has problems, use drugs for cramps or those new bc pills that give you a period 4x/year or something like that.  Then I read that some severely disabled adult women have actually been frightened by their menstrual fluid.  Others play with it.  Makes sense when you remember that some severely disabled adult women are adult in body only.  Also, a pregnant Ashley would never be an involved mother.  I wonder how her body could handle a pregnancy.  Perhaps I need to remind myself that again, as basic as menstruation is for healthy adult women, Ashley is so not any other woman.  Now that I think about it some more, this is probably the least problematic part of the treatment.

Next up: the remaining paragraphs.  There are many parents and families like Ashley's.  Severely disabled adult children are difficult to care for.  Keeping a severely disabled child small is not the answer.  These parents and families all need help.  Too true, but where is this help?  Where all are the good things previously mentioned - adult sized mobility and bathing devices, homecare assistance, caregiver respite programs, etc.?  What should Ashley's parents do as they plan for their daughter's future care?  Should they decide not to do any of the treatment bc there are possible options that they might choose if they were available, these options possibly not coming within the parents' or Ashley's lifetimes?  So, as I'm sure you can see, one main beef I have with Caplan's assessment is that it treats possible options as actual options.

Another is that there's this assumption that it's best for a severely disabled child to mature into a severely disabled adult.  Apparently, large breasts and breast cancer are in Ashley's lineage.  Some healthy adult women with breast cancer in the family choose to have mastectomies.  Some have genetic info that they carry the gene for breast cancer.  Some don't, but have had enough female relatives suffer from and/or die from breast cancer that they live uneasily with the possibility.  Some women with large breasts have breast reduction surgery to reduce the strain on their backs.  Ashley cannot make these decisions; her parents are stepping in to make them.  Maybe it is better for a severely disabled child to not develop breasts than for a severely disabled child to mature into a severely disabled adult who develops large, fibrous breasts and gets breast cancer.  The fact that there are many parents and families who struggle with caring for severely disabled adult and minor children doesn't mean that one option best serves all such children.

And finally, practically speaking, saying it's morally wrong and that there should be other options available doesn't help.  Ideally, maybe the Ashley Treatment isn't the right or only option, but, given un-ideal circumstances, it might be the best option.

My opinion isn't the right or only option, of course!  I'd be delighted to hear why I should think otherwise.

Misc

Did some more reading today.  I might write about inferring possibility from conceivability wrt Chalmers's zombie argument.  I intended to write mostly about Nagel's bat paper and maybe take Chalmers's zombies and Jackson's Mary into account.  In reading around the topic, I've gotten interested in this business about whether or not our being able to conceive of Chalmers's zombies means they're possible.  I reckon they're logically possible, but I'll also reckon that's not enough, i.e., that they should be metaphysically possible.  Anyway, I'll settle on a topic today or tomorrow, along with what I expect to say, and start writing on Friday.

Right now I'm just kicking it here at work.  Wednesday is Socrates Cafe night here at the library and, having set up the eats and started the coffee brewing, I'm just waiting to see if anyone comes tonight.  After tonight, we'll take a break for the holidays and start up again after the new year.  I wonder what questions, if any, folks will have tonight.  It's better when people come with their own questions bc then they're more interested in discussing it.  If no questions tonight, maybe I'll bring up this NYT article about people selecting for things that are commonly considered disabilities (via unfogged).

Wanting to have children who follow in one’s footsteps is an understandable desire. But a coming article in the journal Fertility and Sterility offers a fascinating glimpse into how far some parents may go to ensure that their children stay in their world — by intentionally choosing malfunctioning genes that produce disabilities like deafness or dwarfism.

The article reviews the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or P.G.D., a process in which embryos are created in a test tube and their DNA is analyzed before being transferred to a woman’s uterus. In this manner, embryos destined to have, for example, cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s disease can be excluded, and only healthy embryos implanted.

Yet Susannah A. Baruch and colleagues at the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University recently surveyed 190 American P.G.D. clinics, and found that 3 percent reported having intentionally used P.G.D. “to select an embryo for the presence of a disability.”

In other words, some parents had the painful and expensive fertility procedure for the express purpose of having children with a defective gene. It turns out that some mothers and fathers don’t view certain genetic conditions as disabilities but as a way to enter into a rich, shared culture.

Wow.  This sounds like an obviously bad idea yet, the more I think about it, the more questions it raises.  Is it very different from, say:

• selecting for height, red hair, green eyes, etc.
• selecting for IQ or musical ability
• making other decisions for your child during its lifetime, e.g., religion, schooling, values, etc.

I tend to think it is very different from these.  Selecting for appearance seems shallow, but it is the case that the more attractive people are, the more (of certain) advantages they receive.  Parents making such selections might be trying to offer their children certain advantages.  Of course, they might also think that curly red-haired children w/green eyes are the jam (and they are).  But I imagine many such choices come with disadvantages, too.  I don't know if selecting for red hair and green eyes means you also get the fair skin that often comes with that combination naturally, but fair-skinned, red-haired people are more susceptible to skin cancer.  And very attractive people miss out on certain experiences bc they have things easier.

Selecting for talent or intelligence seems a bit different.  If the child gains a certain talent or high intelligence - and no other thing is lost or diminished as a side effect - the parents are only adding a plus mark to their child's advantage/disadvantage scoresheet.

Given that there are probably relatively few people who use this screening procedure (compared to the number of people who just get pregnant and have their children w/o screening), people probably screw up their kids' lives much more frequently with what they do after the child is born.  Doesn't make those screw ups okay; it just shows that lots of damage can be done to a non-selected baby.

The appearance selections are permanent.  So is the talent and intelligence.  All can be downplayed to varying extents, if the child wishes.  The post-birth disadvantages: Some will be physical (perhaps due to neglect, poor nutrition, lack of health care, etc.) and cannot be reversed.  Some will be psychological or emotional, which will take work to be reversed.  I imagine the more severe screw ups of psychological or emotional nature may never be improved.

It seems like the parents in this article don't see their conditons as disabilities.  I can see how it would be useful, important, meaningful, etc. to them to not see themselves as disabled.  I think someone said 'differently-abled'.  Okay, that works.  But they're still different.  And it's hard to be different.  If it weren't so hard, they wouldn't be so appreciative of and attached to their subcultures, where they receive support, encouragement, friendship, validation, etc.  I find it very hard to believe that they would choose for themselves to be deaf or a dwarf if they'd had a choice.  I know some people say that they're glad they had cancer or some other serious thing happen to them bc it 'woke them up' or made them rethink their priorities or effected some other, positive change.  Okay.  Would they wish that same experience on another?  Probably not.  Not everyone would react or benefit to a serious negative experience the same way they did.  Who knows if it would make their life even worse?

One thing that bothers me about selecting for things like deafness or dwarfism is that it's not adding anything to the child's situation.  It's limiting, rather than broadening.  A deaf/dwarf child will have a difficult time of life in the wider culture.  They might do very well in the more narrow subculture, as their parents seem to have done well.  But why a parent would choose to provide their child with such a pothole in life, I just don't know.  Most parents want their children to do well, to have every advantage in life.  And as much as I understand a deaf or dwarf person not considering their condition as a disability - why would they if they feel they've done well? - I feel uncomfortable with anyone making such a permanent, irreversible choice for another person.  I also feel uncomfortable with disallowing such selections, although I wouldn't help someone make such a selection.

Right now, I'm thinking that, if I think about it some more, I might find some reasons for disallowing it.  There's something that's bothering me that I haven't been able to quite figure out.  I think it's got something to do with the idea (and I'm not saying these parents have it) that, if it's my child, I can select for whatever I want.  First, there's the idea of making such a drastic decision for another person who has absolutely no say in the matter.  Second, there's something about the primacy of the parent-child relationship here that strikes me as close to ownership.  We talk about 'their children' or 'her son' or 'his daughters' or whatever, but that's not shorthand for 'she owns that boy' and so on.  At least I don't think it should be!  And, as one commenter to the unfogged post put it (paraphrasing here), 'just bc people get by without two legs doesn't make it okay to lop them off'.

Anyway, I check out unfogged regularly.  It's a daily dose of, well, lots of things.  I particularly enjoy ogged and Fontana Labs's posts.  I love the way both write and Labs, in particular, provides some comic relief just when you least expect it.  He has the recent post, Philosophy: the little bitch of the sciences, which you might enjoy along with the above-linked post and commentary about disability selection.

While I'm pimping websites, I also enjoy stuff on my cat.  It's pretty straightforward: pictures of cats w/stuff on them.  Sometimes the webmaster's captions are better than the pictures.  Often, actually.  I particularly enjoyed this recent post.  For cat people only, of course; you cat-dissers won't understand.

Well, set me up and knock me down, but I think we've got a taker tonight.  Toodles!

Surrounded

Recently, it seems like everytime I open the newspaper, turn on the news or surf the net, there's some creepy story about adult men and girls.  Via: apostropher: Quote of the Day.

Take it away, Michael Thelemann:

''I'm just somebody who is getting up there in years, and I'm looking for a born-again, God-fearing virgin between the ages of 12 and 24 who can bear me children,'' said Thelemann. ''What's the problem? I just think I have some wicked neighbors."

After removing his sign offering (a whopping) $1000 for a virgin bride between 12 and 24, he's put up another - sans the age restrictions - that further clarifies that "pig-worshipping, heathen, white-supremacists" need not apply.

You have to be clear about these things.

Aaaaaaaaack! You can click on a video news piece at this site. Newsies were talking with neighbors when the perv himself drove up.  He says he has every right to advertise for a virgin bride and yes, a '12 year old is an option'.  He's just waiting to see what 'God brings him'.  Me, too, buddy.  And prolly the cops'll be waiting to see what 'God brings' you, too.  Neighbors are upset and concerned, especially those with children or grandchildren.  One neighbor said Thelemann offered him $100 to find him an 18 year old virgin bride.  $100!  Surely Thelemann is the very last of the big spenders.

His grandmother married a 'much older man' when she was 14 and he doesn't understand what the problem is with him considering marrying a 12 year old.

Thinking about 12 year olds that I know...besides being just plain, flat out gross, it just doesn't seem doable, workable.  One girl and her twin brother turned 12 recently.  Until a coupla years ago, he was the more outgoing, louder, more noticeable one.  He still has a big personality, but she kinda exploded into her own a coupla years ago.  Sometimes they stop by when Kevin and I are hanging out on our porch.  For some reason, last summer, the girl cracked herself up time and again by talking half-sensibly/half-gibberish while making faces at Kevin about 6" from his nose.  Sometimes she has a buddy or cousin visiting and the two (or more!) of them go at it and make total idiots of themselves, amusing themselves until their sides hurt.  This joker from OK sees this 12 year old as 'an option'?  This is the same kid who, along with her sibs, friends and numerous cousins, was rolling around on and laying in the middle of the road on one of the first nice days of this year.  They were pretending they were dead and drawing the CSI-like chalk outlines around their lifeless bodies.

To think that someone who's into stuff like that is 'an option' for marriage....ick.  She's not even ready for junior high, forget getting married, bearing and raising children, etc.  She's not even old enough to babysit on her own.

And again, why is it so important to some 45 year old guy that his wife be a virgin?  Is he a virgin?  (If he's not, I can't imagine it's through any fault of his own.  I'd certainly not hit it.)  What is it with these old white guys and virgin girls?  Just join a singles group or advertise on craigslist or just...just...try to do things in the normal, culturally acceptable manner and maybe you'll meet someone who shares your interests and who isn't, ya know, still into Bratz.

Greetings from WTF, SD

Okay, now this is just gross.  Weird.  Creepy, too.  From digby's blog, two posts about a SD anti-choice group's 'Purity Ball'.  The girls - and some are young girls, i.e., under 10 - pledge their 'purity' (!!) to their fathers (!!!) in front of a whole buncha people (!) at a formal ball (!) !

First, she says:

I pledge to remain sexually pure...until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. ... I know that God requires this of me.. that he loves me. and that he will reward me for my faithfulness.

Squick factor = exponential!

Then he says:

I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.

Squick factor = factorial!

'Covering'? The 'area of purity'?  'High priest in the home'?  I ask you, does this or does this not give off an horrific whiff of incest and pedophelia?  Okay, I'm sure most of these guys are not like that, but, IMHO, it reveals an unsettling preoccupation with what their 3rd grader might do in 8th grade.  (I'm also sure that some of these guys - a minority, of course - are like that bc, face it, they're everywhere.)

As digby points out, some of these girls look like they're 7 years old.  Do they really understand what they're saying?  I doubt it, although that probably doesn't matter to the pledge's defenders.  As digby also points out, there's no mother-son version of this creepy practice.  And why not?  Is a son's 'purity' not as important as a daughter's?

Ya know, I feel a rant coming on.

People need to get the fuck over fucking, okay?  It's just what people and millions of other animals do.  It's not good or bad in itself...it just is.  Hormones kick in and all of a sudden you've got a young person with sexual urges and interests.  This is how people function; it's part of our operating system.  Probably most young people experiment sexually with other young people of the opposite sex and/or the same sex; they masturbate; they check out pron; basically, they experiment with and investigate their sexuality.  Big fucking deal.  You wanna 'save yourself' for marriage?  Knock yourself out.  But why do you have to mess up sex for your kids?  Why do you have to make it a bigger thing than it is?  And what it is is normal human behavior...it's nothing special or exotic.  It's just what people do.  Sometimes it stinks, sometimes it's a ton o' fun, sometimes it's okey-dokey.  Sometimes it's used to manipulate or deceive others; sometimes it's used to show affection to others.  Like lots of things, it can be used lots of ways.

Okay, okay, okay.  Maaaayyyybe I could see you asking your kids to promise that they'll come to you if they have any questions, if they're ever in any trouble, if they're not sure what to do, etc.  Like, privately assure them they can always come to you about anything.  You don't have to rent a tux and say all this in front of a whole buncha people sitting down to either the prime rib, the salmon almondine or the chicken piccata or anything like that...hopefully, you're just working such a conversation into the many conversations you have with your kids.  Sure, at times, even the best kids don't want to hear what you say.  But say it anyway bc they will hear and maybe it'll stick in their heads so that when they're confused...maybe feeling pressured to have sex...maybe wondering if wanting to have sex is normal...whatever!...maybe they'll remember that it's okay to come to you.

Oy.  There are so many real problems available to people...why do we so often go out of our way to create more problems?

Rant over.