a bird and a bottle

Whew. Things are flying at a breakneck pace ’round these parts.

And I’ve got some less than exciting news and some really exciting news.

The less stuff first: I will be traveling for business until Friday and am not sure whether or how much I will have access to the internets and blog-o-sphere. I am hoping to post at least once between now and Friday…but we all know how that goes.

The more exciting stuff is this: The dudes over at Lawyers, Guns & Money have very generously invited me aboard there. So I will be joining the ranks at LG&M, and am proud to be their first female full-time blogger. I am not yet sure what I will do with AB&B. I may keep it up and cross post. I may keep it up only for posterity. We shall see. But beginning Monday, look for me over at my new virtual home.

Well, color me surprised.

I was already to write a post deriding Judd Apatow’s new film Knocked Up. I haven’t seen Apatow’s other work (Freaks & Geeks, the 40-year-old virgin), so this was not what you might call an educated opinion, but I figured that a movie called “knocked up” couldn’t be good. The phrase knocked up just rings of misogyny.

But I was pleasantly surprised. SF and I saw it last night. A.O. Scott was right. It was funny. It was sweet. And, for the most part, it lacked the misogyny that often pervades the two genres with which it toyed: so-called chick flicks and stoner movies.

I was nervous about the film’s treatment — or lack thereof – of abortion. I had heard that the film sort of glosses over it. Apparently, the topic was interesting, and obvious enough, to make its way into the NY Times Styles section this week. While it’s true that “abortion” is never uttered in the film, the issue is not ignored either. More than that, what (admittedly little) conversation there is about abortion in the film seemed to me to be a fairly biting satire of our inability to talk honestly and apolitically about abortion in the U.S. And the film’s general treatment of pregnancy, reproduction, and birth (in a very impressive Stan Brakhage-esque scene) is often much better than the Hollywood standard.

And I’m not alone in my relief: Amanda Marcotte’s review at her new blog Unsprung echoes a lot of my thoughts.

Still, I can see why some pea-brained conservatives seek validation for their misogynist political opinions from the previews of the movie. From the preview, the movie seems like a wet dream for anti-choicers, a story of an uppity bitch who gets hers by getting trashed and sleeping with the wrong guy, which leads to punishment-by-pregnancy. Add in the college Republican fantasy of being able to trap a wife through pregnancy, and you’ve got a bit of anti-choice propaganda. Those folks will be sorely disappointed by the movie, unless they’re too dumb to pick up on the not-really-subtle subtleties, particularly with the way that the movie sides with Alison’s right to have her own life and career despite being pregnant.

All of this praise doesn’t mean I don’t have a bone to pick with the film. And that nit to pick is this: why is it that the only people who actually sorta kinda talk about abortion in the film are men? Ben’s (the guy who gets Katherine Heigl’s Allison pregnant) stoner friends are the ones who get closest to saying the word “abortion,” while Allison’s mother says only that Allison should “get it taken care of,” or something to that effect. One of Amanda’s commenters also picked up on this; she sees it as yet another example of the “father knows best” mindset. I’m not so sure. Maybe it just speaks to the fact that it’s easier sometimes for men than for women to talk about abortion — and to pontificate about it. But maybe I’m just being too optimistic.

Whatever the case, I was impressed by the film. Anyone else seen it and have an opinion? I’d love to know…

I *heart* Apple.

So you can’t go anywhere these days without hearing about Lindsay Lohan’s ignominious return to rehab or seeing Paris Hilton’s most recent mugshot. For the most part, celebrities have tended to get away with snorting and driving — a stark contrast to the rest of us, and particularly to those of us living in communities of color. It’s been a jarring and almost blinding hypocrisy.

Today, in an article on TomPaine, the Brennan Center’s Kirsten Livingston calls our attention to the hypocrisy of American justice. And it’s not only drug rehabilitation that has failed people like Lohan and Hilton — it’s carcereal rehabilitation that has failed them and the wider public. And especially women:

These trends have been especially harsh for women. Since 1970, the rate of incarceration of women has increased more than twelvefold, and although about half of women in state prisons had been using drugs or alcohol at the time they committed the offense for which they were incarcerated, treatment for substance abuse remains grossly inadequate in our prisons and jails. Similarly, there is limited mental health treatment available, though nearly three-quarters (73.1 percent) of women in state prison in 2005 had a mental health problem, compared to 55 percent of men.

As our incarceration rate has grown, moreover, governments have adopted policies that limit the access of people convicted of crimes to student loans, jobs and the right to vote long after they have paid their debts to society. Together, these trends mean that staggering numbers of Americans are either behind bars or disabled from reclaiming responsible, productive lives after prison. Their substance abuse and mental health problems go untreated and, predictably, are often greatly exacerbated by life behind bars.

Research and common sense show that these punitive responses fail to prevent future crimes or provide rehabilitation, while wrecking lives and devastating families. Seven in 10 women enmeshed in the criminal justice system, for example, have minor children to care for.

Not surprisingly, the system has been unduly harsh not only on women but also on racial minorities:

Although African Americans and whites use illegal substances at about the same rates, African Americans are far more likely to be incarcerated for drug offences. Between 1990 and 2000 the number of African Americans incarcerated in state prisons for drug offenses increased by over 80 percent to 145,000, a number that is 2.5 times higher than that for whites. Affluent whites like Ms. Lohan are far more likely to be let go with a warning, to avoid prison time, or to avoid criminal scrutiny at all. Their substance abuse problems lead them to places like Promises, not the penitentiary. Race and class, then, play a powerful role in determining the consequences of unlawful behavior.

Livingston is optimistic though. She sees glimmers of hope in programs being implemented around the country, from New York’s Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison program to a California program that — shock! — is in jeopardy and may lose its funding. I’m not as optimistic as Livingston. I wonder, as Professor Plum pointed out in a comment yesterday, if the racism in our criminal justice system is so ingrained at this point that we don’t even see it anymore except for when it’s smacking us in the face.

I mean, we make jokes at Paris Hilton’s expense, and at the expense of the myriad other celebrities who get caught with drugs but get away scot free. Given today’s biased system, isn’t it they who should be laughing?

A Haiku that will give you some insight into my current extracurricular activity:

Manhattan Island
Apartment Hunting Is A
Bummer in Summer.

I keep promising more posts — at least daily — and I keep failing to deliver. Alas.

Here’s the scoop: I am working full time this summer. I can’t blog during the workday. I try to blog either in the early morning or late night hours, but I don’t always get to (sleep, the gym, a social life get in the way).

But I’ll make you a deal: I’ll continue to post as often as possible, though maybe not every day. And you keep reading, looking forward to the day later this summer when posting will resume at its breakneck pace. Mmmkay?

The NY Times today ran what is bar none the most interesting article I’ve seen in a very very long time.

Turns out, that parthenogenic reproduction is not just the stuff of Greek myth. It actually happens! And not just in plants. In vertebrates too.

According to the Times, a female hammerhead shark recently gave birth to a baby shark that has no male DNA. How does such a thing happen? Well, it goes a little something like this:

the female shark’s own genetic material combined during the process of cell division that produces an egg. A cell called the secondary oocyte, which contains half the female chromosomes and normally becomes the egg, fused with another cell called the secondary polar body, which contains the identical genetic material.

Whoa. What’s funny to me about this is that there was recently a flurry of news about the possibility of parthenogenic reproduction in other animals.

What’s interesting to me is this: the first — or at least most famous — instance of parthenogenesis is the birth of Athena, fully formed, from Zeus’s head. Athena had no mother. Parthenogenesis, in Greek times, wrote women totally out of the picture. But today that equation is reversed. Now it is men’s role that parthenogensis threatens. If reproduction can take place without the contribution of men, might that make men obsolete?

And what, I wonder, would that mean for the raging debates around human sexuality today? If, sexually speaking, men were less important for reproduction than for sexual pleasure, might we lose some of our puritanism? It’s sci fi for now, but I can’t help but wonder….

So, A Bird and a Bottle is a feminist, progressive, foodie blog. At least nominally, though lately the food writing has been lacking. Part of that is due to the mass amounts of studying i have had to do, leaving little time for cooking or eating out (thank you, frozen lasagna). And part of that is due to the fact that there’s been so much action on the feminist and criminal justice fronts recently that the food blogging has fallen by the wayside.

But today, I get to take on food and feminism in a single post.

And here’s why: A few weeks ago, Frank Bruni, the NY Times’ chief restaurant critic, panned restauranteur Keith McNally’s new place in Manhattan, Morandi. The pan (1 star but the review sounded like no stars). McNally, who also owns Balthazar - a Spring Street haunt of the Soho elites - was understandably disappointed. His chef, rising star Jody Williams,must have shared his dismay. Though at that point, with the bad reviews piling up, they couldn’t have been surprised.

But yesterday, McNally bit back, accusing Frank Bruni not of poor taste, but of sexism. According to McNally’s research, Bruni has never given anything more than one star to a restaurant whose kitchen is headed by a woman chef, as Morandi is. In a letter planted with food blog eater, McNally wrote:

One can only wonder whether Bruni would still have his job at The Times if he himself was a woman. Based on the unremittingly sexist slant of his reviews one has to say no. The surprise is that The New York Times continues to condone it. But until it refuses to, its message, through Frank Bruni, is loud and clear: If you’re a woman and talented, the one place you’d better get out of - and fast - is the kitchen.

Ouch. And way to turn that old stereotype on its head, Keith.

NY Mag’s food blog, Grub Street, fought back, defending King Bruni:

The complaint goes on for a long time and seems unlike McNally, who has almost always stayed above the fray. What’s especially unseemly is the way the letter dwells on Bruni’s attitude toward gender (“…when the chef is a man Bruni often makes quite a song and dance about it.”). Given the amount of food-world speculation about Bruni’s sexual orientation, this seems like a low blow, especially since the Times’ review echoed a near-universal critical consensus about Morandi

I have to say, I’m not surprised at McNally’s complaint. This is not the first time Bruni has exhibited a sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge boys club kind of attitude. What I am surprised about is NY Mag’s retort: He may be gay so he can’t be sexist?

I have no idea if Morandi deserves more than one star (though in fairness, McNally does not assert that it does). But I do have to say that it’d be interesting if McNally’s research is proven true. I’m willing to wager that it’s not that there aren’t any two or three or even four star female chefs in our fair city. Lord knows, it wouldn’t be the first time the NY Times’s sexist underbelly were exposed.

The wonders of YouTube never cease. Here’s Dizzy Gillespie (on the trumpet) and Charlie Parker (on sax). If you can get past the introduction, in which the host calls two of the best jazz musicians of all time “boys” (the video is from 1951), it’s a truly amazing duet.

This isn’t an official CYHSY video, but it’s charming. And the song is a goodie.

From Jamie Spencer, Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer:

“Judges Can’t Sentence “Drugs” to Prison. Instead, they sentence people to prison. So let’s just be honest about it, and start calling it the ‘War on Drug Users’, OK?”

How right he is. Punishing drug addiction is unconstitutional since addiction is an illness, so we punish behaviors ancillary to drug addiction. But really, the war on drugs is a war on people who use drugs.

And, because of the sentencing disparities, mostly on poor people or people of color who use drugs. But to admit that might — gasp! — garner some sympathy for users and antipathy to the government’s approach to them. And we can’t have that.

via Coleslaw; cross-posted at LG&M.

Here’s a little Jenny Lewis and the Watson twins (with intro by Sarah Silverman):

My younger brother informed me today that he is taking our mother to a Bjork concert for her birthday. Her 60th birthday.

Her usual music of choice? Easy jazz.

So in honor of my mother’s impending 60th birthday and my younger brother’s obsession as Bjork (he was Bjork, complete with wig, eyeliner, and swan for Halloween last year), here’s a classic (and classically quirky) Bjork video (by “Science of Sleep” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” director Michel Gondry)

The World’s Only Municipal Haunted House. That’s what G — SF’s friend with whom we stayed in Moscow — called Lenin’s tomb, the huge black granite monument to the early Communist leader. Apparently, Lenin was virtually mummified despite his wishes, and became what one website calls “Russia’s Statue of Liberty.” Right. Anyway, Lenin wanted to be buried in a much more discreetly:

When Lenin died of a stroke and heart attack on Jan. 21, 1924, his widow said he’d wished to be buried next to his mother in a simple cemetery plot. But the communist elite had other ideas.

They originally planned to freeze their beloved leader, but his body began to deteriorate badly as a super-freezer was being built. Instead, using an untested chemical process, Lenin was embalmed and his skin carefully treated to preserve a lifelike appearance.

The giant sarcophagus sits on side of Red Square, in front of the Kremlin’s outer wall.

Behind the tomb, past Russian leaders, including Stalin, are buried and have statues in their honor. Year round, huge wreaths of flowers ring Stalin’s grave (this goes back to the common Russian sentiment I mentioned in an earlier post — he didn’t really kill all those people, or if he did, it was for the good of the country).

Inside, it is all black granite and few lights, Soldiers every 10 feet or so keep you moving (no stopping, no photos). Lenin lies there in a black suit, one fist clenched in Communist salute.

The photo doesn’t quite do it justice, but it’s the best one available, and after two metal detectors and 2 pat-downs, I definitely couldn’t take any of my own. When we were there, it was much darker — so much so that I didn’t know there were red lightning bolts around the walls — and the looming guards only heightened the haunted house feel.

Here’s a close-up of the man himself:

Understand now why it’s creepy?

Earlier this week, I promised a review of Berlin’s Weinerei, the establishment where you get a several course meal and all the wine you can drink, then pay what you want at the end of the meal.

The wine was plentiful (Italian Prosecco, German and French Riesling, Spanish red), and the food was delicious. I had a salad with mixed wild greens, seeds, fresh pear, and a French blue (bleu) cheese and a vinaigrette. The image color is a little off — dark restaurant.

I moved on to a risotto with fresh peas, feta, and pecorino (pictured). SF had fish — also delicious and beautifully presented.

After a satisfying meal served by friendly if not super attentive waiters, we dropped our Euros in the door and headed home, enjoying this little taste of bohemia. Pun intended.

—

Food in Russia, on the other hand, requires that you don’t pay what you want. You pay what they want. Which is usually more than you’d think. One of the most surprising things about Moscow and St. Petersburg these last few days has been how expensive it is to live at all well. In Berlin, you can dine out, with wine, for 15 Euros easy. We’ve found that the only thing you can get in Moscow for 15 euros is a bliny (a crepe-like pancake) with some mushrooms inside. Tasty, but not luxurious.

I’ve also been surprised — and intrigued by — how widespread the corruption is here. In Russia, money has become king. Communism really is dead. In its place, there are billionaires running the country. Sounds familiar, huh? Only in Russia, they take it further. Every cabinet post is held by a head of a national, monopolistic corporation (gas companies, oil companies) who are each billionaires and who each have a very obvious — and unavoidable — stake in the country’s policies. The police are bought and sold by the bribes they seek openly every day. The government still wants to know where people are all of the time — hence the registration requirements I mentioned earlier. And journalists keep turning up dead.

Russia also still seems like a Third World country in many ways. You can’t drink the water because of lead from the pipes and Giardia from the local rivers. Instead of taking expensive and regulated taxis, most people just step into the street and raise their arm, hitching a ride with the first car that stops for some agreed-upon price. The majority of people make salaries in the range of $400/month (while the oligarchs continue to become billionaires). The rich-poor divide is astonishingly vast. The government denies that HIV is a problem and continues to label the deaths of incarcerated men from antibiotic-resistant TB as HIV even when evidence points to the contrary. Racism is rampant, and is particularly brutal against people from the Caucasus region, who are different in appearance from those who consider themselves “Russian” (which made me wonder why in the U.S. we use the term Caucasian as a PC term for “white”).

Despite all this, president Vladimir Putin has an 80% approval rating and will anoint a successor (who will easily win the election) before his term expires in 2008. Many people still talk nostalgically about Stalin and Lenin, and justify the 20 million lives lost under those dictators as necessary for the advancement of the country. And I thought the U.S. was bad….