Train. My father used to work for Southern Railroad and the one perk was that we could ride the rails for free. I love being on the train, reading, talking, looking out the window. I loved going to the dining car and having it be real food (linen tablecloths! freshly baked biscuits!) and watching the world go by as you eat. And I **especially** love sleeping on the train- my favorite is the old 1-person cubicles, where they pull the bed down at night and it fills the entire space, with the window taking up the long wall. I would open the curtain and lie in bed, watch the world rolling by, and be rocked to sleep by the movement of the train… Very cosy, and opens up lots of space for musing. And at journey’s end you are in the city you mean to be in, and you can walk right out into it. I’m really not *that* old, but I guess I grew up at the very end of an era. You can still get a lot of that in Europe and a few other places (Amtrak DC-NY used to be ok-ish, though it’s been years since I was on it). Even now, unless there is a huge difference in time or cost, I will take a train between cities- less hassle, more space.

Having “reviewed” Johnnie Cochran’s medical records Dr. Carlo says that it is his professional opinion that Cochran’s tumor was caused by his cell phone use, and lists four “key points leading to that conclusion”. But- did anybody else notice that none of the points listed actually link to Cochran? What in Cochran’s medical records makes Carlo so sure that the tumour was caused by cell phone use? Lots of people who have never been near a cell phone have died of brain cancer or brain tumours. Surely, if there is some physical indication that the tumour resulted from cell phone use, or some significant statistical probability (such as almost nobody who doesn’t use cell phones gets this particular type of tumour and almost everybody who has this type of tumour has used cell phones extensively), that be more relevant. Also, his identification of autism as an “electromagnetic radiation-related condition” is highly speculative, that does not have much support in either the medical or autism communities.

Who wrote today’s posting?! It’s not very WoW-like. Yes, there is a body of evidence that is beginning to emerge about cell-phone related health hazards. There is even a *published* Israeli study which identified a significantly higher incidence of a rare cancer of the salivary glands in a group of cell phone users. But, it should be borne in mind that: 1) Khurana did not say that cell phones are more harmful than cigarettes: he said that their overall potential for harm is greater- because many more people use cell phones than smoke cigarettes. 2) Khurana’s study has *not* been published: he released it while it is going through the peer-review process. That does not make it more or less true, but it does mean that these results have not yet been vetted by other experts. 3) To link this story to Kennedy’s brain cancer diagnosis is specious at best- there is no indication that the type of brain cancer Kennedy has is linked in any way to cell phone use. Indeed, we don’t even know if Kennedy used a cell phone much or at all. To link these stories together is the sort of scaremongering that gets in the way of rational discourse and thoughtful debate- which is what I come to Wow for in the first place. As it happens, I find the cell phone company’s dismissals of potential harm reminiscent of the tobacco company’s dismissals of risks from tobacco, but please- let’s not start the dialogue at such a low level. And, for those of you who are interested in a thoughtful look at how we perceive risk, try reading The Science of Fear: Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn’t—and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger.

My parents used to play the singing nun for us as children, and my brother gave it to each of us a couple of years ago when it was released on CD. But then I googled her and found out what a sad ending she had, which took some of the fun out of it.

Karin, with gentle respect for the challenges in your life, there are different sites for different things. Given what WoW has set out to do, complaining about a lack of ‘articles’ on a specialist topic- however important- is missing the point. There are sites that deal with the complexities of autism (and many other areas of interest to various constituencies within the WoW group). So much of public discourse these days is dominated by special interest groups that it is nice to have a site that is general and varied in its questions and discussions. I like that there are interesting takes on the things we are all involved in (such as the presidential elections or GM foods), as well as random things that are relevant to us as women and as people. A thread on favorite possessions becomes an exploration on what is important to us, as us. As much as autism may dominate your daily life, to me a place where the conversation allows you to lift your head out the trenches and think- however briefly- about other things seems to me a gift of great value.

Actually, I would be happy to be invited back to my high school to speak at reunion as a notable alum. I have enough successes to keep my ego reasonably well stoked, but it’s those high school ghosts are hard to shake!

Deni, with the greatest of respect to the 10th graders involved in the a school GM debate- and I completely supportive of debates like this in schools!- these are not ‘results’. This is the argument of one 10th grader, who is advocating taking a position ‘against’ GM food on the basis that most of the kids in the class who chose that side got an A. By any standard, that is not a reason for anybody else to adopt an ‘against’ position! Further, corporations almost definitionally are NOT “in the business of noble pursuits, concern for humanity or care for the earth”. They are are groups of shareholders who are in business to make money (and remember that more than half of all Americans own some stock in corporations- what is your IRA in? if you hold stock, you own part of a ‘corporation’). If they were in the ‘business’ of noble pursuits, they would be non-profits. “Corporations” have good points and bad points, but it is not reasonable to expect them to be in charge of making the world a better place. Lots of them do make some efforts to be good corporate citizens, many of them don’t. But “corporation” equals “evil” is too simplistic by half.

Right now the world grows enough food to feed everybody. The biggest problem is distribution (as Em pointed out, but didn’t go far enough). For example, Ukrainian farmers recently had to dump $$m of grain because of export controls. Export and import tariffs, along with (politically motivated to help our farmers) agricultural subsidies are currently the biggest contributors to world hunger. By subsidizing rice growers in California (an area which is not suited for rice as a crop) and putting protectionist tariffs on imports to protect those growers, growers in Indonesia (which is suited for rice as a crop) are put at a disadvantage- they can’t access much less compete in, the US market. The US is no star in this, but at the moment the EU- led by holier-than-thou France (sorry, Suzanne, but France’s record of hypocrisy on the CAP and multinationals / globalization is pretty bad) is actually even worse. As for GM foods- the scientists and corporations have only themselves to blame for their inept handling of emerging work. Instead of working to educate people about the different types of ‘GM’, they basically said ‘don’t you worry your pretty little heads about it- we scientists know what is best for you’ - just before BSE! It is too simplistic to paint GM as evil Monsanto trying to bleed innocent small farmers dry. GM is about trying to make crops more resistant to bugs, so that less pesticide is required. GM is about trying to develop crops that are more drought resistant for areas in which that is a challenge. It is not all good or all bad, but it can be a part of helping farmers to be more productive. Cynthia’s point that genetically modified seeds have been used for more than 100 years is the tip of the iceberg- people have been doing genetic modification since the agricultural began in the Fertile Crescent. We are just using more powerful tools now (and, btw, the approach 60 years ago was to bombard seeds with radiation, sprout them and see if any useful mutations emerged, which hardly seems more earth-friendly). Since this has turned into a bit of a rant, I would just add that this is why (imho) all students should have some sort of ‘science in the modern world’ course- so that we are less intimidated by the language and tools of science, and can have an informed and meaningful dialogue about where to draw the lines.

Couldn’t stick Wonder Woman’s outfit! Catwoman’s outfit is cool in a way, but she isn’t. Lois Lane is not a ‘superheroine’- she is the irritating girlfriend of a superhero, which disqualifies her on two counts. The Bionic Woman is a reasonably normal, definitely smart woman who has (albeit indirectly) chosen to ‘develop’ her strengths and then use them as best she can. So, I would go for that. Superhero/ines- like a lot of high-flyers in business and politics- can have a big impact (for better or worse) on the world, but they don’t seem to have very satisfying or well rounded personal lives. And as much as I genuinely admire Eleanor Roosevelt, I don’t envy her her personal life- she made great lemonade from a lot of lemons! On the other hand, I suspect that the answers to this question may also reflect stage of life- the younger me would have leapt at the chance for glory, and I suspect the older me will transfer the energy that currently goes into the care and feeding of my offspring and my nascent career to take on bigger issues. Has anybody read ‘Once Upon a Mid-Life’? It has it’s limitations, but underlying a look at fairy tales that focus on people in the middle stages of life are some interesting points on the ‘tasks’ we need to accomplish at different stages- and how universal these are

We never saw my mother as a rebel, but it turned out that she was. Her mother- our grandmother- was the Imelda Marcos of western Pennsylvania. She had beautiful shoes for every outfit- handcrafted of incredibly soft leathers and silks, always classically, subtlely stylish. She had worn heels for so long- even her slippers had heels!- that she could no longer walk comfortably barefoot because her achilles tendons had shortened over the years. But, with the obtuseness of the young, I did not realize that my apparantly utterly conventional, conflict-averse mother was in fact a rebel of the highest order! In our house we were all barefoot except when absolutely necessary- the depths of winter, going to school, that sort of thing. My mother kept a pair of sandals under the drivers seat of the car because she would often get to the shops only to find that she couldn’t go in because she was barefoot- so she would pull out her handy pair of sandals. Inside the front door of our house- in a very germanic or japanese way- there was (and still is) a row of shoes- everybody kicks the shoes off as soon as they come in the door. My mother changed many things about her life when she left home, and it started with her shoes.

We never saw my mother as a rebel, but it turned out that was. Her mother- our grandmother- was the Imelda Marcos (remember her?!) of western Pennsylvania. She had beautiful shoes for every outfit- handcrafted of incredibly soft leathers and silks, always classically, subtlely stylish. She had worn heels for so long- even her slippers had heels!- that she could no longer walk comfortably barefoot because her achilles tendons had shortened over the years. But, with the obtuseness of the young, I did not realize that my apparantly utterly conventional, conflict-averse mother was in fact a rebel of the highest order! In our house we were all barefoot except when absolutely necessary- the depths of winter, going to school, that sort of thing. My mother kept a pair of sandals under the drivers seat of the car because she would often get to the shops only to find that she couldn’t go in because she was barefoot- so she would pull out her handy pair of sandals. Inside the front door of our house- in a very germanic or japanese way- there was (and still is) a row of shoes- everybody kicks the shoes off as soon as they come in the door. My mother changed many things about her life when she left home, and it started with her shoes.

lol- right there with you, Lena! I hear the padding of my 12 year old daughter’s feet coming down the (wood) hall floor, then her slithering into my bed for a morning snuggle until the alarm goes off- she sets her alarm 10 minutes earlier than mine so that we can have this time together…sometimes we doze, sometimes we talk about what she has dreamed, sometimes about the day ahead, but it’s always a lovely, gentle way to start the day.

I *love* the Tiffany watch in the upper left of the home page- it took me a few days to realize that it actually tells the correct time for where I am! A nice way to get value from an advertisement placement. The hair day weather forecast is fun also (another obvious product placement opportunity…). Like Kathy Nikao, I wouldn’t have time for horoscopes, but I can ignore it on the page easily enough.

Too true!

Well, this question settles any doubts about the demographics of WoW. The women who haven’t answered this question are either too busy or are gasping at the idea of *days* on your own! For those of us in the childrearing segment of our lives, hours (and if the kids are little enough- minutes) on your own is aspirational. It has been more than a decade since I have been alone for a few days. Happy on my own before marriage and babies, I have not had any real desire to spend days away from them since I got them. The odd hour or two, yes. The occasional night away with my husband (so we can have a conversation in complete sentences), yes. But mostly it has been such a kick having them that I have been perfectly happy not being on my own. However, this summer, the children will enter the brave new world of sleep-away camp and the question will become briefly relevant: 10 days without them. Although we will take a few days a deux, we won’t use up all our holiday time, so there will actually be a few days when my husband is travelling and I am home alone. It is almost like being a little girl again and imagining the future. Will I mooch around the house in a dressing gown, eat Ben & Jerry’s out of the package, and watch TV so trashy that I won’t even admit it to my husband? Will I be like the bath salts commercial, line the tub with candles and drink a glass of wine in a bath full of bubbles and listen to romantic old music? Will I be virtuous and tackle the attic? Will I be achievement oriented and get those two articles written? Will I go to evening things- an art opening, a concerned citizens meeting- that are so hard to get to with children too young to leave alone and a husband who is traveling? I suspect that whatever it ends up being, the real delight is in the possibilities- and that mostly by contrast to everyday life.