Saturday roundup and rambles

The Rohingya crisis is brutal inside and outside Burma.

Aaron David Miller points out you don't have to be a Ukraine expert to point out some gaping flaws in logic.

In a similar vein, I tend not to comment on--either to defend or critique--that which I haven't watched, but I don't have to have seen "Cosmos" (the remake) to agree with some critiques--like this one about the hagiography of science "martyrs"--and disagree with others, like some of the neither-here-nor-there articles linked from that one. I particularly don't like the demanding to know why "Cosmos" didn't turn its attention to more recent victims of anti-science dogma (um, because they're not relevant; maybe feature them in a documentary specifically about the victims of anti-science?). And I really didn't like these nit-picks, especially--and I cannot f*ing believe I'm defending physicists when they get called out for non-science, since I'm often calling them out for physical-science chauvinism against the social sciences, but here it is--the second item on the listicle, which argues that the multiverse is not science:

Any time a scientist begins a sentence with “Many of us suspect,” it is codespeak for “we sit around and discuss it at the bar.”

There’s nothing wrong with that. Should you get the chance to join them at that bar, please avail yourself of the opportunity, because there are few occupations where the participants are as funny and engaging as scientists.

Um, in this case, "many of us suspect" is actually codespeak for "this has been solidly demonstrated on paper, i.e., by math." Which is  how physicists theorize. There's a big, big, big difference between sitting around at the bar, and doing the math. In case this guy missed it, someone just got a Nobel Prize for doing the math that led many to suspect something that they could then demonstrate experimentally.

I repeat: it feels really bizarre to be defending physicists. That I'm taking the time to do it is a testament to how f*ed up that "codespeak" argument is.

Moving on to other people I'm surprised to find myself defending: fit mom. And I'm not defending her entirely, as I think shaming has no place in "inspiration." But I think there's a middle ground between her argument and this bullshit from Jezebel (Jezebel, you're making me a little bit libertarian, which is up there with my defending physics and fitmom):

This includes the excessive use of antibiotics given to patients, especially children, and to the animals that we end up eating; the presence of other fattening hormones and medications given to animals that most other countries wouldn't touch;

Newsflash, regarding "the animals that we end up eating": you don't have to eat those animals. No one is forcing them down your throat (or anybody else's). The animals you end up eating, at the expense of your health and that of the planet, are very much a factor within your control. And if enough people stopped eating them, the industry that puts all that stuff in them may just respond. 

Here's the thing: just as it's defeating for fit-mom to ask women what their "excuse" is, it's just as defeating to send women the message that their fitness is out of their control. In a warped way, fit-mom counterbalances the Selter perspective, which is that you'd better live at the gym. I've written in detail about Jen Selter before--or, rather, about my non-hating confusion about why she's a thing. The common thread is that she, too, sees herself as a source of inspiration for other women. Except that, unlike fit-mom, she emphasizes how much time she puts into sculpting herself.

So I'm going to offer myself up for non-shaming, non-obsessive inspiration. My physique is not that of either fit-mom or JS, but it's not too far off. I'm not going to post profiles of my ass online, so you'll have to take my word for it for the point that I'm trying to make, which is that you, too, can get fit without spending lots and lots and lots of time at the gym. I work out three times a week or so, for forty-five minutes each, and throw in a long bike ride or two when it's warm enough. That's really all it takes to get you to a pretty decent place. Because if you think you'll have to live at the gym, you're not going to do it.

Oh, the other thing that would help: stop eating those animals.

***

My friend and I walked out of "Water by the Spoonful," her saying, "how did that win a Pulitzer??" I shrugged; bad plays get good prizes all the time. We weren't the only ones who were unimpressed; during intermission, we overheard others giving their impressions from before and after they fell asleep. It started out oddly compelling, but the dialogue overwhelmingly rang false and there was just too much (unwitty) banter. There have been sooooo many plays of late about addiction (and recovery and relapse), which speaks to what a ubiquitous theme it is, but the fact that everyone is writing about it means that yours better be good. It had better add value to the conversation. Otherwise, go find yourself another topic.