For those of us (females) who are more or less expected to wear make-up, it's alarming how little we know about the contents of those products. The other night I watched an illuminating show on the CBC (Canada's version of, um, PBS?) about carcinogens in cosmetics, and how little Canada's government is doing to regulate the industry or even to ensure that all products are thoroughly labeled. To offer an analogy, about 400 carcinogenic substances are banned from Britain's cosmetics industry; about 40 are banned in Canada. For you Americans, here's a list of substances flagged as carcinogenic by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, but it is not cosmetics-specific. Here's a list of cosmetics products to avoid. Or maybe, ladies, it's just time for us to stop wasting time, money, and our well-being on lifestyles that for centuries have been expected of one sex and not the other.

To follow up on Rosie's blog of January 22nd, regarding McDonald's legal victory over a 19-year-old girl who blamed the chain for her obesity, I've just read a thoughtful account in The Toronto Star arguing the story ain't over yet. Apparently the judge in the case (aptly named Judge Sweet) has given the plaintiffs 30 days to tweak their complaint. If they can prove "that McDonald's products have been so altered that their unhealthy attributes are now outside the ken of the average reasonable consumer," (and how hard will that be?) they might just win. In principle, I think it's misguided to blame weight gain on the food rather than the food consumer, but with the majority of Americans still getting their daily ration from what Judge Sweet called "a McFrankenstein creation of various elements," how else are you going to regulate a megachain's version of "food"?

The subject for today's Working Assets Radio is Preempting Bush’s State of the Union, sounds like a better use of my time.

The world continues, whether we blog about it or not.

To keep yourself from dissolving, to stay human, keep your sense of your place.

Yesterday up here in Canada, our prime minister made a statement about Canada's position on a U.S. war with Iraq. This morning, two major newspapers print the story. But what is wrong with this picture?

From the national paper, The Globe and Mail, we get this front-page headline: "PM to Bush: Hold off on war."

From The Toronto Star we hear that "Chretien supports U.S. push for war."

It's my favorite kind of journalism -- Choose Your Own Adventure!

From The New Republic, some fresh vitriol against reality TV: "The irony is that if 'Joe Millionaire' were an explicitly fictional sit-com or miniseries, people would be enraged by the message it was sending. But under the absurd cover of reality TV, FOX can essentially give the finger to an entire gender -- to the delight of audiences everywhere, if the ratings are any indication -- without raising an eyebrow."

Following up from yesterday on things new and pschyo-manipulative, the Village Voice has an article today about trauma therapy drugs with some other potential uses that are particularly nasty - severe guilt reduction. Imagine an army of guilt free soldiers...

"There is a disconcerting symmetry between Prozac and Ritalin," he (Fukuyama) writes. "The former is prescribed heavily for depressed women lacking in self-esteem; it gives them more the alpha-male feeling that comes with high serotonin levels. Ritalin, on the other hand, is prescribed largely for young boys who do not want to sit still in class because nature never designed them to behave that way. Together, the two sexes are gently nudged toward that androgynous median personality, self-satisfied and socially compliant, that is the current politically correct outcome in American society."

This kind of stuff gets my brain buzzing (the ideas, not the enhancemements) and wondering all about what we will be doing to our brains in the next 20 - 30 years. While I am not sure how much I agree with the author's take on it, it's fascinating stuff, very real, and not far away.

Tom Tomorrow caught a press conference with our president babbling about the cost of malpractice insurance in the state of Pennsylvania.

Affirmative action seems to be gathering momentum as a hot topic these days. And having spent the past three months applying to various graduate schools across the country, I know a bit about it. There's a section about ethnicity on all the application forms -- and filling out that section is "optional." I chose to not exercise that option, even though my chances of getting into these schools would have been higher had I identified my minority origins as a Czech immigrant. Personally, I found it insulting that the mere facts of my birth, mother tongue, and economic status should be weighed alongside my grades, skills, and experience. So I'm not exactly pro-affirmative action. But I also find it vaguely odious that the Bush Administration is involving itself with a lawsuit on the matter.

NY Times login: opensewer; password: iswatching.

"I would not put an inexperienced driver in a vehicle that is rollover prone,” says Dr. Jeffrey Runge of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Mr. Runge has resolved to more carefully scrutinize the safety of SUVs and their strong tendency to roll over.

We’ve heard so much criticism of these much-maligned vehicles (a large percentage of it coming from us), but in the end the real victims are the drivers of SUVs themselves. Or perhaps I should say that “they get what’s coming to them.” Do they not realize that when they tailgate those of us who choose to drive smaller cars—when they behave aggressively toward us, when they are oblivious to all other drivers but themselves—don’t they realize that we retaliate?

I can’t tell you how many times Rose and I “mess with” SUV drivers after they behave aggressively toward us. (We’re not instigators, mind you—we’re reactive, not proactive in this situation.) It’s so much fun to drive real slowly when one of those big guys/girls zooms behind you in a hurry, headlights glaring in your eyes, the monster-vehicle wavering from side to side in an angry demonstration of impatience. It’s so fun to trap them at the next red light, or to box them in on the highway. And boy, oh boy, do they get angry. Their blood pressure must be zooming to an even higher level than it was when they first attacked.

Childish? Irresponsible? Perhaps. But no more so than driving an SUV in the first place.

Somehow Tom Tomorrow consistantly explains the current American condition with a simple comic. This week, "the moon may break out of orbit and crash into the earth."

Alternet has a list of its Top Ten Conspiracy Theories of 2002. Full of stories that will make you pause, laugh, or shake yer head in shame and wonder. Or maybe you'll just call them all wacko-nutjobs.(lotsa links in there)

Time Europe asks, "Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" The results aren't surprising.

The War Against the Movie Critics- from Salon.com. In a more general sense -what is the origin of the anti-critical sentiment: Anti-elitism? Feelings of exclusion? Inferiority? And the attacks most often seem to strike movie critics - why? Why do people with no training or background or schooling think they can critically review movies as well as experienced professionals? (Maybe b/c of dumbdown critics like the two thumbs reductionists...) I doubt most people would feel qualified to review literature or architecture. Yet any Joe who's seen The Godfather thinks he knows great movies . And to prove them right, we get such qualified and trained people as Ed Koch doing reviews. (once again, the nytimes login is: login:opensewer; password:iswatching)

It's sad that my favorite magazine publishes so few women, and those who do get a byline tend to contribute poems (the smallest possible offering), and those who contribute poems tend to be the editor-in-chief's personal assistant.

A wise person once told me, “big people talk about things; little people talk about people.”

Of course, it’s natural, even good, to engage in a little gossip, people-watching and stargazing once in a while. Without it, life would be cold and quite boring. And without it, we wouldn’t recognize heroes. We need heroes, or at least role models. We also need meaningful human relationships.

But living vicariously in all its forms—reading People magazine, gossiping about others—is a parasite to stable culture when it goes too far. An existence centered on reactions to other peoples’ lives is an existence that lacks meaning. Pathological schadenfreude is the sign of a weak mind and soul.

(Indulge me—I’m getting to my point here…)

We all had high hopes that Reality Television would die a messy, painful death when lame-ass shows like Big Brother didn’t get the ratings media execs thought they would. But now, according to this article in a Pittsburgh paper (one of many articles like it), it’s been given new life. This, apparently, is largely thanks to American Idol, a show which, according to what I’ve heard people say about it, had some socially redeeming value. (Really?)

But the recent shows (Joe Millionaire, Celebrity Mole) reach new lows, drawing more than ever on desperation, embarrassment and voyeurism as key resources. Joe Millionaire adds a new resource: The Outright Lie. I’d like to think that those who watch these shows are victims of “evil executives” out to steal their money and attention and bent on world domination. But people are ultimately responsible for their own actions, so I guess that makes them (me? you?) just poor, bottom-feeding losers.

Cotton candy tastes good, but too much of it rots your teeth.

Last night COPS had some sort of anniversary or something on the only station I receive broadcast from here in hilly Ithaca.... While I didn't watch, I can assure you this story didn't make it.

Ahh, kids today, lock them up and throw away the key. Zero tolerance, only way to fix them and their drug habits, right? Wrong. It just leads to more drug use - and maybe worse, more addictive use.

This is the kind of thing that scares me for the kids coming into the world. I don't plan to have any anytime soon, but I know people who do, and I fear the schools aligning themselves like this - against children, really - more than "dangerous" teens.

And besides, locking kids up for pot is un-Christian, too.

This is big news - the kind of news that won't get reported too much in the major media, because, well, it's about the media. The feds are paving the way toward greater media monopoly in your town. This is bad. This terrible. This is the kind of stuff that gets me so angry about this nation I live in - people working hard to mess it up. There are names we call these people, but this is a family website. (freeloader free pass to the free nytimes.com - login:opensewer; password:iswatching)

What rights do these corporations, these creations, these legal fictions, have? Nike is arguing they have the right to lie, just like people have the right to free speech. But why should an organization have human rights under the US constitution? (from mefi)

Mass layoffs (no longer even to be reported); faked missile defense test results; the UN sees no need to start a war with Iraq.

Brand New Year! Same Old.... Stuff!

In The New York Times this morning, an article on the growing clout of anti-abortion finks in Washington.

The tail-end of the piece is clearly intended to sound chilling, and it does indeed make me shiver: "This agenda reflects a strategic shift among many anti-abortion advocates in recent years: While still committed to ending legalized abortion someday, many have adopted a more gradual, step-by-step approach intended to change attitudes and laws over the long haul."

It's hard to believe women (and thinking men) would allow abortion rights to be eroded, and attitudes to be changed via the passing of outmoded laws, but then I remember an article in The Village Voice last summer, talking about penniless teens trekking to New York and sleeping on people's couches just to get the abortions they needed in a country where one would think such procedures would not entirely disrupt females' lives.