“Int he GORRJUSS?”

I don’t agree with much that Gareth van Onselen writes, but fair play to him for sticking his white, middle-class, privileged, male head over the metaphorical parapet and writing this:

Sisonke Msimang works as a senior programme specialist in charge of policy development, advocacy and communications at the Sonke Gender Justice Network. She is an outspoken advocate for women’s rights, a Yale fellow and was selected as a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader.

In November last year, Msimang wrote a letter to her daughter in which she said of those who say a woman is “sexy or beautiful” when she is trying to be smart, “they do this because they want to put you in a box, and you must fight them and their boxes tooth and nail”. Yet she has a box for Harris, and the only thing inside it is eye candy.

Regarding this tweet:

“If @mbalimcdust and @zilevandamme can organise private discussion on erm, DA Econ policy w Tim Harris I will abandon the IFP. @JoziGoddess?”

Regarding Tim Harris, DA Poster Boy er… Finance Spokesman.

tim harris

And not withstanding that there are obviously some complex issues at play here (a point which van Onselen covers), it’s a clear case of double standards from someone who really should know – and think – better.

Two wrongs have never made a right.

A different kind of transplant

When all else fails, (and make no mistake, all else is failing), comes the time to think outside the box. Some might argue that the time to think outside the box should come before all else fails, and they are probably correct in that, but that’s another argument.

We are slowly, surely, insidiously returning to a pre-antibiotic age. The antibiotics that we have are becoming less and less effective against common infections and consequently, those common infections are starting to kill us again. One such infection is Clostidium difficile (so “difficile” in fact, that we microbiologists even disagree on how to pronounce it, so it’s “C.diff” to its friends) – a gastrointestinal bug that gives you horrendous – and now incurable – diarrhoea. This bug kills 14,000 Americans each year, and lengthens the hospital stays of hundreds of thousands of others.

But while supportive therapy might help treat the symptoms, with no antibiotics available to treat the cause, we stay losing.
Until now:

…researchers have discovered an alternative: A donor’s stool can be transplanted in the intestine or colon of a sick patient via an enema,colonoscopy or nasogastric tube. The healthy bacteria fight off C. diff and re-establish a normal community in the gut.

Yep. Poo transplants. Regular (Lolz) readers may recall that we’ve had a quick look at this before, and then yesterday evening, this NYT article arrived from a medically qualified friend on Facebook, complete with smiley face attached.

It’s all about the world’s first “Stool Bank” and it’s beautifully written:

Around noon on a recent Friday, Donor Five, a healthy 31-year-old, walked across M.I.T.’s frigid, wind-swept campus to a third-floor restroom to make a contribution to public health.

Less than two hours later, a technician blended the donor’s stool into preparations that looked like chocolate milk. The material was separated and stored in freezers at an M.I.T. microbiology lab, awaiting shipment to hospitals around the country. Each container was carefully labeled: Fecal Microbiota Preparation.

There are issues though. The FDA are struggling to provide any sort of clarity on licensing of the treatment, meaning that donor poo can’t be sold for profit at the moment. And we know that large pharmaceutical companies are (understandably) reluctant to follow up on these things if there’s no money in them (another argument again).
Until the regulations are established, the research and the treatment can’t gain traction, but that’s not the biggest problem here. Because while there’s no traction in the research and treatment, people are taking matters into their own… er… hands: there exists the danger of an unregulated, unsafe Black… [shurely “Brown”? – Ed.] Market:

“People are doing fecal transplants in their basements and may not be doing any of the right screening or sterile preparation. We need an intermediate solution until there are commercial products on the market.”

What you get up to in your basement is entirely your business. Literally, it would seem in this case. But, even with my limited medical expertise, I would strongly advise against homemade faecal transplants.

Rather get a qualified doctor to fill your colon with someone else’s (screened) poo, should the need arise.

Uncle Alan

My Uncle died yesterday. He had been ill for a long time, but his death, while peaceful, was rather sudden and is obviously hugely sad news for the family.

IMG-20140217-WA0001

He died with my mum – his sister – at his side yesterday afternoon, just 45 minutes after my parents had arrived at the hospital on the Isle of Man, almost as if he was waiting for their presence or their permission to go.

As my only “real” Uncle, I have so many memories of him going as far back literally as I can recall: Friday night fish and chips at his house with lashings of really dodgy Liebfraumilch, taking us down to Bay Stacka and the Sugar Loaf on Fisher Lass, him babysitting my brother and I (aged about 7 and 9) and letting us watch Alien, being brave enough to take me, aged about 11,  bodyboarding on Gansey in a hailstorm – me in full wetsuit, him in a pair of shorts – long walks around Langness collecting firewood, surprising us with ice cream from Smokey Joe’s when we were on the beach, his old Maxi with the holes rusted through the floor, and so many more.

My brother had been over to see him on Saturday and while I wish that I could have been there too, I enjoyed a 20 minute conversation with him over Skype. My last memory of my Uncle Alan will be his disbelief at the technology in front of him as I showed him Cape Agulhas lighthouse and the turquoise Indian Ocean. He always loved anything to do with the sea. We even shared a joke or two. It might not have been the same as actually being there with him, but for me, it was a special moment – even more so now – and I hope that for him, it was a bit of escapism from his hospital bed.

I’m absolutely gutted that he’s gone and I’ll miss him terribly, but I’m glad that he died peacefully: comfortable, warm and well cared for, and with his family by his side.

A quick explanation

…or “Why Jacques is right – and wrong”.
…or “Why I wrote what I wrote”.
…or “Meh, whatevs”.

I really don’t want to add to this molehill in my teacup, but I feel that I – and maybe others – might want some explanation (and need some clarification) on my rationale behind the women24 post I wrote on Friday, just for when we fondly look back on these halcyon days. My twitter, email and blog have since been alight with misquotes, unfounded allegations, hyperbolic extrapolation and general hatred.

It’s been such fun. Really.

Jacques Rousseau wrote about that post here and set out – as always – a compelling and sagacious case on why he feels that I was incorrect to have used the term “mixed messages” when calling women24 out on their coverage of the distasteful and bizarre spectacle that is ‘The Red Carpet’ at the annual State of the Nation Address (SONA). That said, and despite the absence of the ‘challenging vocabulary’ for which he are famed, I still don’t agree with him.

The argument against my stance presented by Jacques and others seems to rest upon the fact that the hate-filled, vitriol-spewing (LOLz) gallery I used as an example was from last year’s SONA and that women24.com’s editorial policies have changed since then.
Jacques and others suggest that this invalidates my message. And, if one works from that foundation, and uses simple logic, Jacques and others are absolutely correct.

But here’s my issue. Jacques hints (and others have triumphantly asserted) that I was unaware that the gallery in question was from 2013. Not so. No, I state that very clearly in my blog post.
For me, the date of the pictures and the comments is irrelevant, because if anyone searches on women24.com for SONA fashion, they’ll find that vindictive 2013 gallery right next to this year’s wonderfully positive one. You don’t have to be a regular reader of women24.com to do a search; you don’t have to have the context that Ms Radloff et al are only nice about the fashion choices of politicians these days.

But don’t get me wrong. I’m delighted that at some point between February 2013 and last Thursday evening, women24.com came to the conclusion that shaming politicians over what they choose to wear to an annual ceremonial event wasn’t a nice thing to do (actors are evidently still fair game though) (unless there’s been another sea change in editorial policy since January 13th).

Anyway: well done, welcome to the 21st century.

But there’s nothing on that 2013 gallery that says “Actually, we’ve realised since we published this that it was a bit of shit thing to do and so we’ve stopped doing it now”. There’s nothing in that faux holier than thou “OMG, How Could You?” post from Friday that says “Although, in fairness, we were also still doing this until very recently too”.
Moreover, and perhaps more realistically, as far as I’m aware (and I’m quite sure that someone from that band of merry women would have pointed it out to me if it existed), there’s nothing on women24.com telling us about what – let’s face it – is quite a big shift in editorial policy for a women’s “lifestyle site” and one which they should surely be proud of.
This is something that Jacques eludes to as well.

So, yes. If any one of those things was clear, then yes, the foundation of Jacques’ argument would be solid and maybe I’d look a bit foolish (Hell, it’s happened before…). But their asking “since when do we expect members of parliament to look and dress like A-List celebrities? And why do we care?” and “can’t we at least let them wear what they want?”, just because they changed their minds on how they choose to report that, and while still having that 2013 gallery readily accessible on their site, well yes, that for me clearly amounts to sending out “mixed messages”.

This really isn’t meant to reignite any flames of argument. As I stated a few hundred words ago, it’s merely an explanation and clarification of why I said what I said and why I’m happy to stand by that position.
The difference between that position and Jacques’ comes down simply to a difference in opinion, and as far as I know, there are no set rules about that sort of thing, other than “it’s fine to have them”.

And on that note, let’s just remind ourselves of Jacques’ final paragraph:

When we get around to engaging each other – on these and other issues – let’s try not to assume the worst, though. It’s getting more and more difficult to talk about issues without presumptions of guilt or virtue, and we all play a part in creating – but if we care to be more careful, undermining – a culture in which blaming, judging, and shouting are valued more than understanding is.

Preach, brother…