Liberals In Exile

Yes, I stopped blogging...

2010-08-11T18:28:00.001-04:00

I'm thinking about restarting, but time and energy have been very limited. We'll see what the future holds.

Hey! Biological Determinists! Listen Up!

2009-08-26T09:50:00.000-04:00

I have a question. When you get the urge to urinate, do you just whip it out (or squat) and piss wherever you happen to be standing, regardless of whether you're in a board meeting or standing in line at the DMV? No? Didn't think so.

Do you know why you don't? Because biology produces the impulse, it does not dictate your actions. Simplistic but true. So, stop pretending that simply having certain biological impulses justifies or explains irresponsible, illegitimate, illegal, or immoral acts.

Thank you. You may now return to your regularly scheduled idiocy.

Not One Nickel

2009-06-13T10:16:00.000-04:00

Not One Nickel lays out the new voice of the LGBT Community in the face of constant betrayals by the Democrats, who want our money, our votes, our time, our energy and our support but force us to live as second-class citizens in our own country and refuse to support us on even those issues where we have public opinion behind us. We will not stand for these cowardly betrayals any longer. As we approach the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, a new radicalism is emerging. I, for one, think it's about damned time.

No Gay Rights, No Gay Dollars!
No Gay Rights, No Gay Votes!

If you support the LGBT cause, whatever your orientation, please return any Democratic contribution requests with the words above or some equivalent written on them. If you have a web site or blog, please post this request or some version of it. Please help us send the message that human rights should never be sacrificed for political expediency.

UPDATE: If you wish, you may also like to participate in Operation DOMA Flip Flop. It'll only take a few minutes and won't hurt at all (unless you get a paper cut, in which case, it'll hurt like a bitch).

Homophobama...

2009-06-12T21:59:00.001-04:00

In addition to flip-flopping on Don't Ask Don't Tell, under which 13,000 men and women in our armed forces have been discharged for being gay, Obama has now allowed his DOJ to defend the Defense of Marriage Act by, in part, comparing gay relationships to incest and pederasty.

Sadly, I'm not even remotely surprised. Once again, I was right all along.

Fellow Pro-Choicers...

2009-06-02T10:02:00.001-04:00

Please stop making us look stupid.

You think it's clever to challenge pro-lifers with miscarriage and spontaneous abortion as some sort of counterpoint to their opposition to induced abortion. Often, you'll snicker and pat yourself on the back after making this argument because you're sure that the stunned look on their faces is proof of your ideological and rhetorical victory. You're wrong. It's not clever. You deserve neither to snicker nor to pat yourself on the back. That stunned look is not proof of victory but a response to the complete stupidity that is your argument. Look at any intelligent pro-choicer's face after you've made that argument and you'll probably see the same stunned look.

You see, whether you like it or not, there is a difference between miscarriage/spontaneous abortion and induced abortion just as there is a difference between dying of natural causes and dying due to some action on the part of another human being, be it manslaughter or murder or self-defense. There is a HUGE difference. To say that pro-lifers have to be opposed to G-d or nature's creation of miscarriage in order to be ideologically consistent is just ridiculous. That's the equivalent of saying that a person can't be ideologically opposed to murder or manslaughter if they're not also ideologically opposed to dying of old age.

So, please stop making that argument. You've embarassed the movement enough.

Taking "Marriage" Out of the Equation?

2009-05-27T20:17:00.001-04:00

Many people, including the President, suggest that we should reserve the word "marriage" for heterosexuals in deference to "religion." To them and to you, I say this:

I'm a Reform Jew. Both the Central Conference of American Rabbis and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations resolved in the late 90's to oppose governmental restrictions on gay marriage. In 2000, the CCAR voted to allow rabbis to perform the actual Jewish marriage ritual for gay couples. (The kiddushin thing is kind of complicated.)

Anyway, if we take the word "marriage" out of the equation in deference to "religion" as many politicians, including the President, have suggested, we allow a subset of Christian denominations to become the government-approved "official" religion of this country. We would also say that my religion and so many others are invalid and unworthy of recognition in the United States.

Personally, I would not readily surrender my 1st amendment rights any more than I would readily surrender my 14th amendment rights, the basis upon which equal rights and equal protection stand.

Obama--Constitutional Scholar?

2009-05-25T12:40:00.002-04:00

I've been confused by this since the primaries. How has everyone bought this Obama the Great Constitutional Scholar bullshit hook, line and sinker? As far as I know, Obama managed to become Editor of the Harvard Law Review and a Professor while never having produced ANY original scholarship in constitutional law and having very little experience actually working as a lawyer. Perhaps he had some stellar academic credentials, but we don't know that because he had his academic records sealed. I, for one, highly doubt that his academics were that impressive considering his efforts to conceal them. (What candidate proud of their academic credentials has them sealed when all other candidates have provided theirs?)

In virtually every field with which I am familiar, Obama's story would be impossible. In my own field, journalism, you can't get even an associate professorship at any reputable university without having produced original, published work AND having worked as a journalist. You sure as heck would not be made editor of any of the journals without extensive publication.

Is the field of constitutional law completely devoid of such a standard?

Update: Did some research. Obama was "President" not Editor of the review. My bad. I'm used to the editor title. Anyway, it was considered extremely unusual for a President of the Harvard Law Review not to publish at that time, since membership in the review was considered "publish or perish." The Review had a policy of stripping membership from members who didn't meet a publishing due date. Those who were stripped of membership were required to contact all firms that had offered them jobs and inform them that their membership had been revoked and that they did not have the right to list it as a credential on their resumes. How did Obama escape this requirement? There is a heavily edited, unsigned "note" from before Obama's membership that is occasionally attributed to him but Obama's own people denied he'd ever published. Since it was prior to his membership, it also wouldn't have fallen within the review's publication requirement as far as I can tell.

Interestingly, it was also expected that an outgoing President would work as a clerk following graduation. EVERY outgoing President did so BUT Obama. Another oddity.

I stand by my assumption that it is ridiculous to call someone a distinguished scholar in a field in which he produced no original scholarly work.

Stupid Politicians!

2009-05-21T10:22:00.001-04:00

Digby and Greenwald have excellent posts on the Republic and Democratic politicians' exaggerated fear of keeping terrorists in American prisons, as well as the MSM's complicity in the lies and fearmongering. I have two questions:

Why is it that suspected terrorists get fewer legal protections and less humane treatment than the men we KNOW planned, organized and carried out the brutal occupation of most of Europe, the enslavement of millions and the carefully executed murder of 12 million people (6 million of them Jews) in the Holocaust? Are we saying that Afghan shepherds are more dangerous and less human than genocidal, warmongering maniacs like Goering?

In Remembrance: Still We Have Not Forgotten

2009-04-21T18:53:00.002-04:00

Today is Yom Hashoah, the day of remembrance for those who perished in the Holocaust. The following video may be a bit too sad for some. So be forewarned.

In case you were wondering, the song is "Ani Ma'amin" or "I Believe." which was sung by Jews on their way to the gas chambers at Auschwitz. These are the words in Hebrew (transliterated) and English:

"Ani ma'amin b'emunah shleimah beviat haMashiach, v'af al pi sheyitmameiha, im kol zeh achakeh lo b'chol yom sheyavo."

"I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah, and though he may tarry, nevertheless I await his coming every day."

11-Year-Old Commits Suicide Over Anti-Gay Taunts

2009-04-19T15:50:00.004-04:00

Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover was 11. Bullies at school called him fag and sissy. They tormented him because they thought he was gay. His mother continually demanded that the school intervene. They didn't. Carl killed himself 2 weeks ago. Once again, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover was 11. Think about it.

Maddow: Torture Must Be Prosecuted

2009-04-19T15:42:00.001-04:00

Olbermann: "President Obama: You're Wrong."

2009-04-19T15:40:00.000-04:00

Obama and the Nuremberg Defense

2009-04-19T15:15:00.002-04:00

The infamous Nuremberg Defense, rejected then by the U.S. and her allies, was "I was just following orders." It has long been American law that a member of the military or any agent of the American government MUST refuse to obey an illegal order. Although some military interrogators and military lawyers spoke against torture as illegal, immoral and counterproductive, various members of our military and the CIA (or Blackwater contractors acting in their name) conducted torture against men, women, and children (those under 18), both the guilty and the innocent. In at least one case, American military resources were diverted to chase the torture-induced fantasies of a literally insane person. By all definitions, these acts were war crimes both on the part of those who ordered them and those who obeyed. Under American and international law, anyone suspected of war crimes MUST be prosecuted.

Recently, Obama released Office of Legal Counsel memos, which he was legally compelled to do. At the same time, he promised war criminals that they would not be prosecuted for their crimes and invoked a rehashing of the Nuremberg Defense. Glenn Greenwald has a strong legal examination of this illegal promise, replete with links to others well worth reading. Rebel Reports has the UN Rapporteur on Torture's response to Obama and condemnation of a decision that is itself a violation of law and considered a war crime.

When American leaders quote Nazi defense arguments, we can only pray that G-d and destiny will have mercy upon our nation.

No, They Didn't!

2009-04-15T15:55:00.002-04:00

Yes, they did. The so-called "Christian News Wire" has drawn a line between gay marriage (and the sexual revolution) and mass murder. Yes, "teh gayz" caused mass murder.

These people seriously need to remove the word Christian from their name or the Christians who are actual sane people need to go over there and kick some faux-Christian ass!

Oy! Not Again!

2009-04-11T19:30:00.002-04:00

There are certain truths in this video, borrowed from A Blog Around the Clock, but I have a few problems.

The first, I think is obvious, with the false dichotomy between believing scientific things and believing supernatural or nonscientific things. The creator mistakes the scientific ideal for how science actually occurs and ignores the fact that many nonscientific ideas are produced with the same intellectual rigor as scientific ones. Many ideas caught on in the scientific community though there was no good evidence for them, such as the multiverse theory. On the other hand, the scholar's study of history, for one example, demands a careful examination of evidence and the willingness to challenge the current paradigmatic interpretation of past events. Nonscientific is here and in too many places used to mean "not based on evidence" or "not intellectually rigorous." This breed of scientism is dangerous at worst and foolish at best.

Secondly, and perhaps most important, is that the standard of demanding evidence before accepting a piece of information is an impossible one and one which would quickly cripple the mind of anyone who attempted it. The complexity of society and the variations in human ability and knowledge demands that we depend on others for information, often without being able to know or examine the evidence for the information they provide.

Our willingness to accept claims we cannot verify is often a practical necessity and is rarely a character flaw. Few people accept anything and everything they're told. Most filter information as well as they can based on what evidence is available to them, what seems right based on what they already know or think they know and a basic "common sense" of the kind of ideas that may need to be further examined. Both good and bad ideas get through the filter, so trust is added to the mix as well. If we trust a person for some reason, be it personal experience or the person's expertise, we accept what they tell us.

This need to trust others to some extent often leads us down false paths and makes us prone to accepting foolish claims or ones that would seem foolish to someone who knows more about X, thinks they have opposing knowledge or simply has a different worldview. But the source of those foolish claims is not always nonscientific or pseudoscientific or supernatural. Sometimes, science or at least a scientist is the culprit.

Whether we like it or not, the man in the white coat is treated with the same deference as the man in the white collar. Many of the studies conducted on people's willingness to blindly follow an authority figure used scientists as the authority figures. And for good reason. We see the man in the white coat as knowing more than we do and having better judgment about many issues.

Considering the scientist's field of expertise, we're usually making a safe bet, although there are many scientists who have used fraud to further their own flawed hypotheses and their authority to have them accepted in the mainstream. Outside of the scientist's field and within circumstances where moral, political or practical decisions must be made, we're often wrong to accept the scientist's authority simply because he's a scientist. His expertise does not apply in these areas and is therefore no reason to trust him implicitly. Yet we do.

Again, this is not a character flaw, nor is it a character flaw to occasionally reject a good idea because it doesn't get through our filters or make sense based on what we think we know to be true. This also is a practical necessity. It can lead us down false paths, but it makes living life possible.

In the end, being closed or open minded in regards to a particular type of information doesn't mean we necessarily have some character flaw. There are limits to the usefulness of both and a practical need for both in varying circumstances. There are also limits to the human brain's potential to have the right attitude towards every possible type of information which we'll encounter in our lives. Trial, error and humility are the best we can do.

GG: Taking it to the Man

2009-04-11T12:15:00.002-04:00

Glenn Greenwald is doing such a good job taking down the constitutional violations and now war crimes of the Obama presidency that I can't add anything to the analysis but this:

The Obama cult of personality aside, some liberals and progressives saw this coming, including yours truly. Obama's vote for FISA proved he wasn't that interested in civil liberties. Obama's use of what I called Rovian tactics (including "stealing" the nomination through caucus fraud and backdoor deals with the DLC) during the Democratic primaries proved he was much further in the game than people realized and much less of a man than they hoped.

The Gay Marriage Myth....

2009-04-09T10:22:00.002-04:00

Many people are confusing ceremonies performed by clergy for gay couples with marriage ceremonies. Here's the truth.

ONLY the state can ratify a marriage. Clergy who perform ceremonies for gay couples outside of states where it is legal, must perform "commitment ceremonies" or "union blessings" NOT marriage ceremonies. It is a crime to perform a marriage without a license from the state. One clergywoman in New York has already been charged for performing a same-sex ceremony and calling it a marriage.

The clergy make every effort to make the ceremony as close as possible, religiously, to the sacrament performed for heterosexual couples but they aren't marriages and cannot legally be recognized as such.

UPDATE: It'd been a while since I read about the case. It was actually TWO clergywomen charged for performing THIRTEEN marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

Lies and the Lying Christians Who Tell Them

2009-04-08T11:07:00.001-04:00

Note: Not Christians in general, just the specific ones discussed here. I love me my Christian friends, even if they do eat pork and work on the sabbath!

Anywho, an anti-gay marriage group is running an ad against gay marriage, saying that the passage of gay marriage has led to violations of religious freedoms. You can read more about their lunacy at Salon's War Room.

Here was my response:

In all of these cases, the religious body was acting as an agent of the state, receiving state funding or running a business open to the public. Allowing them to discriminate would be a violation of anti-discrimination laws and a violation of separation of church and state, as the churches would then get special privileges not offered to secular agencies operating in the same capacities.

The churches remain free to discriminate in non-state funded, non-state related activities. There is NO violation of freedom of religion in these cases, just the "freedom" to take taxpayer money while discriminating against those same taxpayers.

It's a cheap shot, but imagine that one of these churches asked to use taxpayer money to discriminate on some other basis, such as religion, race, etc. Would anyone take their claims seriously?

I'd like to add that I'm astounded that the religious groups running anti-gay marriage campaigns for the last couple of years have used some of the most dishonest arguments available, ranging from substantive distortions to outright lies. How is it that those who claim to speak for G-d traffic so readily in lies and aren't being called out by anyone but their opponents? Don't the so-called Christians who oppose gay marriage have a problem with their co-religionists breaking one of the big ten so publicly? Isn't hypocrisy condemned in the Christian scriptures? And lying? And self-righteousness?

Step up, Christians. You're free to disagree with gay marriage. You are not free to drag the name of our G-d or your G-d through the mud with your lies and filth.

Obama's Lessons from Enron?

2009-04-05T08:51:00.003-04:00

You simply must read Glenn Greenwald's take on Obama's economic shenanigans and the steps he's taking to subvert the necessary regulations and oversight that could save this economy by restoring faith in the system. Make sure you also read the articles he links to for background and watch Bill Moyer's interview with William Black. (The very last sentence is priceless.)

My favorite is this quote from a WaPo article:

The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials. . . .

The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials. . . .

In one program, designed to restart small-business lending, President Obama's officials are planning to set up a middleman called a special-purpose vehicle -- a term made notorious during the Enron scandal -- or another type of entity to evade the congressional mandates, sources familiar with the matter said.

That's right. Obama is using the same fraudulent practices that tanked Enron and saw its leaders convicted of criminal activity. Who could have known that Obama would be unwilling or unable to do what it takes to save our country from the largest economic disaster since the Great Depression? Wait, I remember. You read it here in November:

I assure you that his policies are the exact opposite of what needs to be done right now and what is being done by state and local governments around the country. The decisions are hard, but they have to be made if we're going to stabilize our economy. Obama refuses to either see or admit that.

At best, Obama's shenanigans will be pushing the can down the road a bit, hoping another bubble will improve the economy enough to make it look like his policies worked. Ultimately, however, his failures now will lead to even bigger disasters down the road, mimicking the same boom/bust cycle that led to the Great Depression not the investigations, regulations and public investment that stabilized our economy, shortened recessions and prevented depressions until they were gutted during the last four presidencies.

Someone Please Teach Obama Protocol

2009-04-04T21:56:00.003-04:00

The diplomatic faux pas are piling up. Some are petty, like giving the British PM DVD's that are useless in British machines or giving the Queen an iPod. Others are a little bigger, like refusing the traditional joint press conference with the visiting Prime Minister, rescheduling a visit with the President of Brazil, and misspelling the name of a visiting head of state on the formal announcement. But this one is gigantic! The President of the United States bowed before the Saudi king! This gesture implies that the POTUS and, by extension, all Americans are subjects of the Saudi king. Lovely!

I LOVE Being Right

2009-03-22T18:52:00.002-04:00

In November, I said this:

Obama is a liar. Over and over again, Obama has changed his story and his stances on the issues. Call him on it and he denies he ever held the previous view, despite the existence of video, audio or written evidence.

and this:

Obama is for Obama and nothing else. From his revolving door for associates and friends who no longer serve his needs to the willingness to provoke old hatreds, Obama seems to care little about anyone and anything but himself.

Now, Obama has done this:

The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.

That's right. Obama is cannibalizing his own party, throwing a distinguished ally under the bus, and lying through his teeth (despite publically available evidence) all to save his own ass. It's good to be right, but how I wish I'd been wrong.

You say secular, I say secular...

2009-03-12T15:49:00.003-04:00

I saw this as part of one comment on a Salon Broadsheet piece about a Muslim woman being asked to leave the teller line because she was wearing hijab:

The USA is a secular country, and you have the right to look secular. I don't care if it's your religion or a personality disorder that makes you a non-conformist but wearing head-to-toe garments is no different from going barefoot or shirtless. No shirt, no shoes, NO DICE.

This is mild, of course, in comparison to some of the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Muslim/anti-religious nonsense that passed for comment in this thread. However, it pinged one of my pet peeves, so I'm on it.

Secular has multiple meanings. It can mean non-religious in a categorical sense: like football is secular or T-shirts are secular clothing. It can mean non-religious as in secular humanists, who reject religion and theism generally. It can mean non-religious as in the secular state is separate from and takes no official stance on religion.

In France, secular means the third usually but the second in many cases, even when referring to the secular state. France has passed laws forbidding the wearing of certain religious attire in public schools, for instance, an act that would be illegal and unconstitutional in the U.S. Unfortunately, the French response to diversity is not an effort at multiculturalism, but an effort to conceal differences rather than tackle bigotry.

As far as the U.S., our government and our rights, secular takes the third meaning. So, you have the right to look secular, sure. But you also have the right to look religious. Heck, you have the right to walk down the street dressed as a Klingon monk or Vulcan priestess if you want. As far as the government is concerned, it is unconstitutional to pass a law that would impede the free practice of faith and the free participation of all people of all religions (or none) in our society. It is also illegal to discriminate based on religion or lack thereof, if you are a private entity operating a public business, such as a bank.

Which brings us to hijab. Asking a person to remove a baseball cap to enter a bank for security reasons makes sense and doesn't do any harm to the person involved, unless he or she is wearing a cap for some medical reason (like concealing the effects of chemotherapy.) Culturally, asking a woman to remove hijab is like asking her to remove her shirt. Big difference.

A standard policy of "no head coverings", no matter how universally applied, has a very different effect on Muslim women then and impedes their free participation in our society. It's bigoted. It's unnecessary. It's illegal.

*For the anti-Muslim bigots who like to invoke woman-beatings and redneck-ized versions of Muslim men when hijab comes up, I'll point out that many Muslim women wear hijab voluntarily and see it as an act of basic modesty, like wearing a shirt. Liberal women defend this choice, because it is a choice worth defending. There is no hypocricy in supporting a woman's choice of culturally-relative modesty while opposing the forced covering of women and the persecution of women who would not or do not choose to wear hijab, niqab or burqa. So, get off your high horse.

And by the way, If you want to stand in judgment, imagine how "oppressed" some cultures would find us Western women, forced to cover our breasts in public (even while breastfeeding)under threat of arrest for public nudity.

No, That Is NOT The Writer's Duty...

2009-03-09T11:54:00.004-04:00

Salon has a fawning paean to Jonathon Keats and his supposed duty as a writer to commit blasphemy. Strangely, I find this offensive, not as a Jew but as a writer. Since when is it a writer's "duty" to trot out a trope as ancient as, well, Ancient Greece? Writers since time immemorial have defamed sacred figures, both religious and secular, as a way of challenging people's notions about the sacred and profane. In many cases, they have a great point to demonstrate in doing so. However, to claim that blaspheming in and of itself is the writer's duty is the argument of the hack who puts predictable tab A into outdated slot B and proclaims himself an artiste. Please, stop pretending that tired repitition and immitation are art, that being edgy or blasphemous for the sake of being edgy or blasphemous are anything other than exercises in masturbation.

I Lied...

2009-03-08T14:21:00.001-04:00

Okay, there's one more thing you should read. Salon has an excellent, snarky take on the changes in our political system and Obama's policies in relation to those changes.

If you read nothing else....

2009-03-08T13:25:00.003-04:00

Read Glenn Greenwald's ongoing examination of the Obama administration's attacks on our constitution and the rule of law, all in the name of "the institution of the presidency." No, not the actual constitutionally-mandated institution of the presidency. That would be too liberal. Instead, Obama is seeking to preserve the expanded, illegally-constructed "institution of the presidency" brought to us by Bushco.

When, oh when, will the liberal chattering classes learn the difference between liberalism and centrist neoliberalism? When will they get that the centrist neoliberals are more than willing to throw the constitution, human rights and the rule of law under the bus for political expediency and power politics? Soon, I hope. It's been a couple of decades now since the DLC destroyed the influence of the left and liberal political philosophies in America and turned the Democratic Party into America's center-right party. Only the truly dense would take much longer to figure that out.

One (Hopefully) Last Time...

2009-02-26T11:38:00.000-05:00

Since someone calling himself "Strong Atheist" over at Democratic Underground has taken it upon himself to be a one-man lynch squad for the last two and half years, let me clear the air once again.

First, my apologies for addressing the previous post to all DUers. I'm sure you can understand the anger, but it was inappropriate.

1. I did not join DU to weigh in on "Strong Atheist's" psychotic circle jerks. I was a member for a very long time, stopped participating because of the "scandal" and couldn't remember my original (very old) screen name and password since I haven't used it in about 2 1/2 years. I rejoined specifically to lodge a complaint.

2. No, I am not anti-atheist. I'll refer you to many of the posts I've written here in defense of atheists. See April 2007 for a few examples. Unfortunately, neither my print work nor my years as an activist can be proven with a link.

3. No, I did not call for a "purge" of atheists from the Democratic Party. I am not a member of the Democratic Party and haven't been since the 90's. Virginia doesn't have party registration. My last non-Virginian voter registration listed me as "other: democratic socialist." The one before that also listed "Democratic Socialist." Not to mention the fact that it is impossible to "purge" anyone from a political party in the United States.

4. No, the word "purge" did not appear in some imaginary "original version" that disappeared into the ether. Both the first and second draft were posted here in March/April 2006. The third, which I thought was just another draft since I was struggling with the piece, was published on Raw Story. When I realized that and saw the response, I took full responsibility, apologized and attempted to explain.

5. No, I did not condemn all or most atheists in that column. I referred multiple times to the fact that most atheists were NOT extremists or whackjobs. Yes, the term whackjob was inappropriate, but I previously apologized for that.

6. No, I'm not a Christian. It states here and in the column that I'm Jewish. This "Christian" rumor is proof that many who condemn me did NOT read the column.

7. Yes, I do believe that some atheists are extreme in their views and behavior. I also believe that some Jews, women, gay people, etc. are extreme in their views and behavior. I've spoken out against them too, although I've probably done a better job on those occasions.

8. Yes, I did vote McCain/Palin and it was NOT an easy decision to make. That vote is the only vote I've ever cast for a non-Democratic, non-liberal candidate. It doesn't make me a bigot. Nor does it make me a PUMA, since (once again) I'm not a Democrat. I felt then and feel now that, considering the status of the current Democratic and Republican parties and the complete obliteration of an influential American left, we'd be better off with a mixed government. I also have serious concerns about Obama's ability to do what must be done. Unfortunately, we've seen in the last month how Obama's stumbles have been presented as validation of Bush policies.

9. Yes, I stopped writing for Raw Story after that piece. That was my choice based on a.) not wanting Raw Story to pay for my failure to prepare/write the column as it should have been, b.) a serious disagreement with how the situation was handled, and c.) a desire to be rid of the constant harassment/threats/stalking behavior I experienced for months afterwards. Although I no longer write for them, I am still a big fan of the great work that Raw Story does.

10. I believed that this would blow over. I was obviously wrong. But as many have pointed out, people like Strong Atheist (and the much discussed rabid atheist gang over at DU) prove beyond a shadow of the doubt that, while I could have presented my points more clearly and in a less offensive way, I WAS RIGHT!

Now, please allow this to be my final word on this subject.

And, to those of you who start calling my house and hanging up every time Strong Atheist posts one of his Melinda-bashing rants, if this continues, I will have the police and other proper authorities investigate and I will press charges. Don't end up in jail over something so petty and pathetic.

Welcome, DUers!

2009-02-19T20:08:00.002-05:00

Two and a half years and you're still obsessed. Obviously, nothing I ever say or do will sway you from your quest to cyberstalk me in perpetuity. However, I'd like to suggest "Activities When You Have No Life." That'll give you something to do between orchestrating Harry Potter wank-off parties and your obviously brilliant plots to change the world one five-person forum poll at a time. Good luck and G-d bless.

It Was Not a Malfunction!

2009-01-21T10:57:00.002-05:00

Some of you may be aware of the claims that Robinson's prayer not being broadcast on the mall was an "audio malfunction." That is bullshit!

Everyone who took TV Production remembers the commands given from the director's booth prior to going live. The rest of you, try to remember all of those shows about making TV shows OR the few glimpses of the director's booth they give you on some live broadcasts.

What are the final commands? "Bring up audio. We're going live in 5...4...3...2... Cue intro." HBO provided the mall broadcast as part of its production of the national broadcast. HBO would've kept audio down during any "pre-show" preparations. The Obama Inaugural Committee scheduled Robinson for "pre-show" so it was not broadcast. Since audio was "down" and not "off," it could be heard (barely) by people really close to the towers but not by anyone else.

This was NOT a mistake. The Obama camp has scheduled various televised events that were also broadcast to large audiences on-location, including his victory speech in Chicago. They KNEW Robinson would not be heard on the mall or on HBO!

Also, this is NOT the first time they've done this. When the LGBT community got a little peeved at Obama's invitation to anti-gay Donnie McClurkin to participate in his concert tour, he invited a gay minister for "balance" BUT scheduled the minister to speak so early that neither Obama nor most of the on-location audience had shown up yet. The guy stood there talking to an almost empty room.

UPDATE: There were major typos in the original post. I fixed them. Sue me.

We Will Not Be Silenced

2008-11-01T21:00:00.001-04:00

This may be the most important half hour of your life.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson ...

Putting Country First

2008-11-01T12:26:00.002-04:00

I feel like I should be writing this at some twelve-step meeting or, perhaps, at some ideological reeducation/rehab camp. It's just insane and will shock anyone who knows me either personally or professionally. So, let's just jump right in, shall we? Just rip off the band-aid. Okay.

I'm voting McCain/Palin.

Why?

1. Obama is the least qualified presidential candidate in modern history and his VP running mate is an ignorant buffoon. Yes, Palin has much to learn but, according to those who have worked with her, including Warren Buffet, she's an extremely impressive woman and is being "misunderstimated." After reviewing her real Alaska record rather than the Obama-backed internet myths, I'm seriously impressed.

2. Obama has never looked beyond himself as candidate and seriously considered what it'll take to lead. This may have something to do with the fact that he's spent his entire political career running for some other office. Not once has he completed a term without running for higher office. Anyway, far too many questions result in Obama talking about his campaign rather than his record, a record he has taken great pains to conceal. What kind of person destroys his entire record as a State Senator, leaving no documents to be reviewed?

3. As a candidate, Obama is seriously corrupt in a way only a Chicago politician can be. From getting opponents kicked off the ballot to forcing the release of sealed divorce records, his campaigns in Illinois were Chicago corrupt all the way. During the primaries, he went even further, embracing Rovian tactics. There are widespread accusations of vote suppression, voter intimidation and vote fraud in caucus states around the country. The Texas Democratic Party has called Obama's actions criminal and requested a full investigation. Having reviewed the accusations carefully and discussed the caucuses with friends who were there, I find the accusations have weight and are truly frightening. The ACORN doesn't fall far from the Obama-tree.

4. Obama is a hypocrite. He has stoked partisan hatreds while claiming to be postpartisan. He has used the most racially divisive tactics possible while proclaiming himself the postracial candidate. Somehow, Obama and his supporters have managed to paint the Clintons, his Republican opponents, and the majority of Americans as racists for daring to questions his qualifications, his policies and his character. I've seen standard political boilerplate being recast as racist simply because it's being used against Obama. According to leaked documents from the Obama campaign that seemed to disappear once he became the Dem nominee, this was Obama's major campaign strategy.

5. Obama is a liar. Over and over again, Obama has changed his story and his stances on the issues. Call him on it and he denies he ever held the previous view, despite the existence of video, audio or written evidence! Over and over again, Obama has chosen not to explain his associations but to lie about them. Can you go to church twice a month for 20 years and never know that your minister is a loon and a racist? Can you call a guy your moral foundation and not know that he's an anti-Semite? Can a person babysit your children yet just be some guy you know that you had a conversation with once? Can a guy help get you into Harvard and help you pay for it yet be someone you don't even know?

6. Obama is a sexist and enabler of misogny and violent anti-woman rhetoric. From sexist attacks on Hillary during the debates to sexist attacks on Sarah Palin now, Obama has been both active and passive participant in the most blatantly misogynistic tactics to mar our national discourse in decades. My favorite: the obsession with Sarah Palin having been a beauty queen when she was about 20. Guess what Obama was doing around that age? Cocaine. I'll take fancy pageant-walking any day.

7. Obama is an idiot. During many recent interviews, Obama has talked about going into Afghanistan and stopping Al Qaeda once and for all. How can you be a citizen of the U.S. in the post 9/11 era, a Senator since 2005 and a presidential candidate since 2007 and STILL not know that Al Qaeda is an international bohemoth that can never be completely defeated in any one country? The only possible answers: stupidity or willful ignorance. There have been so many other naive, stupid or just plain boneheaded claims on Obama's part that I can't even catalogue them here. This is just the worst of the lot.

8. Obama's economic plans are potentially disastrous when combined with Congressional Democrats intentions for an Obama presidency. I work in an economically-related field in government. (Considering the classified nature of much of what I do, I'll leave it there.) I assure you that his policies are the exact opposite of what needs to be done right now and what is being done by state and local governments around the country. The decisions are hard, but they have to be made if we're going to stabilize our economy. Obama refuses to either see or admit that.

9. Obama is for Obama and nothing else. From his revolving door for associates and friends who no longer serve his needs to the willingness to provoke old hatreds, Obama seems to care little about anyone and anything but himself. Why did Obama not pick Hillary, the candidate who received more primary votes than any other candidate in history? Why did his campaign announce that the choice of more than half the electorate wasn't even vetted? Why did his campaign willingly participate in the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters? Why did his campaign participate in the charade at the Democratic convention where Clinton delegates were pressured into ignoring the voters and moving their support to Obama? Why did the normal nominating process give way to the joke of having Clinton stop the count on Obama's behalf? Obama. The alpha and omega of Obama's heart trumps any concern for the people, our expressed will and our democratic processes.

10. Etc. illegal campaign contributions, manipulation/intimidation of the press, broken promises on campaign funding, broken promises on FISA, ....

So, I'm voting McCain/Palin. With a balanced government and two leaders with a strong history of moderate, bipartisan rule, our country will be a lot better off and that's what matters.

Plato Said It First!

2008-05-02T06:18:00.002-04:00

The Lesbians are suing the Gay and Lesbian Community of Greece in an attempt to prevent them from using the word lesbian in their group's name. What now?

Apparently, three islanders from Lesbos are a little peeved at the modern connotations of the word lesbian and are suing! Since lesbian has been used to refer to gay women since the 18th century, I think they're a bit late.

Science and Religion

2008-04-20T13:55:00.002-04:00

I've been playing over at ScienceBlogs again. Matt Nisbet has an interesting post on what he calls the "atheists' delusion" about the link between science and atheism. Many who wish to draw this supposed link rely on studies that show greater levels of atheism/agnosticism in the scientific community than in the general population and argue from this that scientific knowledge has a negative effect on religious belief. (You can read my comments there, but I must warn you that I accidentally posted as "anonymous" on two of them. See if you can find me. haha)

The biggest problem with such arguments is the "correlation proves causation" fallacy. Just because two things happen "at the same time" doesn't mean they're related. One does not necessarily cause the other. In fact, these things may have no relationship between them at all or both may be caused by a third factor.

This is no more evident than when we note that NAS members are demographically distinct from non-NAS scientists and the general population in other ways that have been shown to have no relationship to scientific ability. For instance, women are slightly more than half of the population, 20 to 30% of people with doctoral degrees in science, about 15% of full professors at top research institutions, but only 6% of the NAS membership.

The correlation/causation folks like to argue that this demonstrates that women probably aren't as good at science. Remember the Lawrence Summers controversy at Harvard? The science says otherwise.

This NAS report on women in academic science and engineering examines the role that bias and institutional structures play in the dwindling percentages of women in the higher echelons of science and engineering compared to the lower levels. In fact, it concludes that women are underrepresented compared not only to their numbers but also to their qualifications. In other words, there are more women qualified to be in the highest levels than there are in the highest levels.

The same problems exist for racial/ethnic minorities and people from the lower rungs of the economic ladder. It is my hypothesis that the empirical data on barriers to women and minorities in scientific fields and the barriers that prevent lower class people from pursuing advanced education skew the numbers for religion as well. These groups are known to have greater levels of religion than the upperclass white males that make up the overwhelming majority of NAS members and the majority of scientists in general.

Expelled!, Darwin and the Holocaust

2008-04-12T14:59:00.004-04:00

Evolving Thoughts has a funny but inaccurate post on the relationship between Darwin and the Holocaust, as described in Ben Stein's "Expelled!" You can read my major criticism there, but I have one more comment:

Too often, in discussing the evolution/intelligent design debacle and the supposed link between Darwinism and eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, the Holocaust and the death of Santa Claus, both sides ignore historical fact and basic reason.

The Good Guys

I'll count evolutionists as the "good" guys because I'm biased in their favor, because evolution is the better theory and because I can. It's my blog, after all.

Too many evolutionists, like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, stray from the science of evolution to historical and ideological arguments that are either irrelevant to the debate or tremendously weak in fact and in logic. They are far more interested in scoring ideological points for the "New" Atheism than in defending good science from bad ideas.

Others, as is the case with Evolving Thoughts, ignore the difference between linking Darwin to the Holocaust and other events and movements of the 19th and 20th centuries and blaming Darwin for anti-Semitism or genocide in general. Yes, anti-semitism and genocide preceded Darwin, but his ideas were influenced by and contributed to the development of scientific racism, which influenced the nature of these movements/events.

Darwin, like many prominent scientists, believed that the preservation of the weak (those with physical and mental defects) impeded human evolution and that human evolution would advance through "civilized races exterminating and replacing the savage races." His moral opinion was a different thing altogether. He opposed eugenics and genocide.

Those who were influenced by Darwin's theories and scientific racism in general drew upon the "factual claims" and ignored many scientists' moral compunctions against certain actions. Sir Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin, drew on his work to create Eugenics but the applications of the theory and its prescriptions for human society were often in contradiction to Darwin's own moral views and occasionally a distortion of Darwin's factual claims. (More on all below.)

The Bad Guys

The I.D. popularizers are more concerned with rhetoric than with fact and science.

There is no direct line between Darwin and the "evils" of the 20th century. Abortion, for one, is ancient and, in the majority of cases, has more to do with the individual woman's circumstances than with any scientific argument based on "survival of the fittest". (Abortion of "defective" fetuses may have some links to Eugenics but mostly has to do with people deciding that they don't have the mental, physical or economic resources to cope with a disabled child.) A wide variety of events and ideas led to the Holocaust: from Germany's defeat in WWII and its subsequent political/economic collapse, to long-standing religious bigotry, to nationalism and the desire to build an unbeatable and authentically German Germany, to power politics, to xenophobia. Eugenics we've covered, but it drew just as much from statistics, socioeconomic and class biases, the work of philosophers like Plato, and ancient Greek/Roman practices of infanticide than from Darwin and evolution.

Finally, they equate Darwinism with modern evolutionary biology, which began with Darwin but has now moved light years beyond him. Science has done what science does, corrected theory based on new discoveries. It will continue to do so as scientists attack each of the flaws in the modern theory.

UPDATE: Just for "insurance," I'd like to make the distinction between influenced and caused. Richard Dawkins says that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist", but Darwin by no means created atheism. His work, however, influences how atheists view the world and provides what some atheists "interpret" as "proof" that there is no G-d.

Darwin influenced the development of Western ideas about race and human nature, both good and bad, but he by no means caused the moral, social, cultural, historical and political factors that made appropriations/distortions of his work so appealing or so effective. In the same circumstances, the Nazis probably would have done the same thing. Their arguments and methods would have been very different, but their actions probably would have been generally the same.

The American Educational System

2008-04-12T10:02:00.002-04:00

Absinthe has a disturbing look at the illiteracy rates of American eighth graders and drop out rates in American schools. You may have to scroll down to see the articles.

Always interested in the pathetic state of our educational system, I took a look at the 2006 OECD Program for International Student Assessment, which focused on science, to see where we stood. I'd recommend reading the whole thing, but here are some statistics and exerpts you may find disturbing.

Overall, the U.S. ranked 29th and fell significantly below the OECD average. In the U.S., 24.4% of 8th graders fall below level 2, the minimum scientific competency needed "to participate actively in life situations related to science and technology."

Students’ socio-economic differences accounted for a significant part of between-school differences in some countries. This factor contributed most to between-school performance variation in the United States, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Slovak Republic, Germany, Greece and New Zealand, and the partner countries Bulgaria, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay.

NOTE: Some countries. Not all. If something inherent in socioeconomic status determined educational outcome, we'd expect more countries to show significant differences universally.

Less than 10% of the variation in student performance was explained by student background in five of the seven countries with the highest mean science scores of above 530 points (Finland, Canada and Japan, and the partner countries/economies Hong Kong-
China and Estonia).

NOTE: So, if the school system is better, the socioeconomic differences shrink to near insignificance.

In countries with relatively strong and steep socio-economic gradients, socio-economically targeted policies are likely to achieve most.
– In Hungary, France, Belgium, the Slovak Republic, Germany, the United States and New Zealand, and the partner country Bulgaria, the gradient is both steeper and stronger than average for OECD countries (Table 4.4a).

What do we do?

Countries where a high level of variation is accounted for by between-school socioeconomic factors particularly need to consider whether socioeconomic segregation by school is harming equity and/or overall performance (Table 4.4b).

Students of low economic status are all too often placed in schools with high concentrations of poor students, inadequate facilities and supplies, high percentages of underqualified teachers, and high student-to-teacher ratios. Students of low economic status placed in schools where the socioeconomic status of students is mixed do better.

I spoke at a school in New Orleans once where ALL of the students were disadvantaged African-American students. There weren't enough textbooks for the students despite a recent textbook purchase, so they weren't allowed to take books home. Promised educational materials (from which teachers were supposed to develop lesson plans) arrived months after the start of the school year. Some windows were boarded up. There was no toilet paper in many bathrooms. Parts of the classroom were literally falling apart. It was deplorable.

The worst part? A woman I knew who taught at the school and had been declared (by the school system) a "highly qualified" math teacher brought me a copy of a standardized prep test where one question supposedly had no right answer. She told me that four math teachers had pored over the test and been unable to find one in the options offered. The problem: -5 squared. (Anyone know how to do superscript in blogger?) The first possible answer: A. -25. The correct answer: -25. This "highly qualified" eighth grade math teacher and her coworkers didn't know the difference between -5 squared and (-5) squared. I had to pull the math textbook to prove to her that -25 was the right answer. Highly qualified indeed.

What about gender?

Of the attitudes measured in PISA, the largest gender difference was observed in students’ self-concept regarding science. In 22 out of the 30 OECD countries in the survey, males thought significantly more highly of their own science abilities than did females (Table 3.21).

BUT

Males and females showed no difference in average science performance in the majority of countries, including 22 of the 30 OECD countries (Table 2.1c).

And we wonder why there are so many people completely ignorant of or in denial about the validity of evolution, modern medicine (as compared to homeopathy, chiropratics, crystals and the like), human involvement in climate change, the biological insignificance of race, the biological significance of sexual orienation, the realities of class, and the extraordinarily limited effect that innate gender differences may play in achievement.

I Am So Offended....

2008-03-21T18:11:00.002-04:00

DrugMonkey has started a very interesting discussion about being offended over at Science Blogs. I'd like to weigh in because really, being able to "go off" on what offends me is one of my favorite things about being a writer. In fact, if you've read my blogs or much of my published work, you'll know already most of the things that offend me. Nonetheless, here they are:

Bigotry

I cannot stand bigotry. Put me in the room with a bigot and I'm bound to become so incensed that I literally get physically ill. Unlike many people who claim to hate bigotry, however, I'm offended by it in ALL of its forms. Whether it's a member of a majority attacking a minority group or the reverse, I get in high dudgeon. So, for instance, I'm just as offended by some women stereotyping all men as I am by certain men stereotyping all women. I completely recognize that one has greater EFFECT than the other, but that doesn't change the general offensiveness of either.

Finding Offense Where There Is None

I've seen far too much of this in politics and public debates. This little phenomenon rears its head when someone insists on claiming their "opponent" is saying, writing, arguing the opposite of or at least something very different from what they actually are. The "offended" person then attacks the made up statement.

For instance, recently Al Sharpton took offense at a Clinton-related politician stating that some whites weren't ready to vote for a black man. Sharpton, however, attacked the statement never made that a black man could never be president. The ACTUAL statement is rather accurate considering the current state of race relations and is an indictment of certain parts of white America. The MADE UP statement is racist claptrap and easy to find offensive. The ACTUAL statement isn't very useful for someone wishing to score political points against the Clinton campaign. The MADE UP statement works just fine at making it look like the Clintonians are injecting racism into the campaign. I wonder why Al Sharpton would use the MADE UP statement?

The Dreaded Slur

I generally find slurs offensive or inoffensive depending on context. Some of my closest friends could get away with calling me Kike Dyke or Half Breed. We'd probably laugh about it. Why? Because I KNOW that I don't hang out with homophobes and anti-Semites. I KNOW that they wouldn't do it in front of unknown Jews and lesbians so that they wouldn't offend unintentionally. It's all from love and our generally bizarre senses of humor.

However, when a reader once insisted on repeatedly calling me Jew Dyke, I was spitting fire. Not publicly, of course, but my floor took a good pacing and my teeth were nearly worn down to nubs.

Willful Ignorance

Some people can't help not knowing things. Humans can't help not knowing everything. But when you make a point of not knowing something you really should know, you've got a problem.

When people like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al. write books about religion but don't bother to find out what the FACTS are about what people ACTUALLY believe or how religions are ACTUALLY practiced or how religious behaviors fit into universal human/primate behavior patterns, it chaps my hide.

When the president of the United States avoids asking the experts because his friends and his prayers and his "gut" tell him all he needs to know, I want to vomit.

When people go off on ill-educated rants about how our country isn't "really" a democracy anymore because the people don't get to micromanage national policy, I just want to scream "No shit, Sherlock! The United States never was a direct democracy. That was the whole point! Read the FUCKING constitution, Moron!"

Blaming The Victim

She was wearing a short skirt, so she was asking to get raped. If you'd shut up about being gay, people wouldn't have a reason to attack you. We've heard it all ad nauseum.

My new favorite is people who speak or behave offensively acting like their "victims" don't get to be offended. If you call someone a moron, they have the RIGHT to get a little miffed. If you're acting like a jackass, people have a right to tell you that you're a jackass. If you're being a willfully ignorant, bigoted, slur-slinging moron, people have a right to get royally pissed. Deal with it.

They Hate Us Because We're Wonderful And/Or Better Than Them

This one is bad enough coming from ignorant morons like George Bush, but when people who should know better think this is a reasonable argument, grrrrrrrrrrrr.......

My least favorite example of this came up in the discussion that inspired this post. A quote from Richard Dawkins: "Offense is what people take when they can't take argument" Maybe Mr. Dawkins should consider the possibility that educated theists find him offensive because he's a willfully ignorant, bigoted, slur-slinging moron who intentionally misrepresents his opponents and the state of the world so that he can pretend that he's so oppressed by being a best-selling author who makes millions off doing the very thing he insists can't be done publicly these days, attacking religion. Okay, that may be the longest sentence ever but I'm pretty sure it's both grammatically and factually correct. Don't make me have to blog Dawkins' book to prove it.

The Obvious

I think I can skip listing things like slavery, rape, child abuse, etc. as things I find offensive. If you can't guess that from the title of the blog, you probably haven't been able to read this far anyway.

Conservative Christianity = Christianity = Religion

2008-02-14T12:44:00.003-05:00

Greta Christina's response to this has got me in a dander for a number of reasons. I'll stick with the big 3.

1. The equation in the title seems to be implicit in too many people's discussions of religion. This sentence in particular goads me, "And of course, I could get on my atheist high horse, and talk about the fucked-up effect religion so often has on sexual happiness." I'll assume she's talking about Christianity since sexual dissatisfaction is grounds for divorce in Judaism (for either partner). I'll also assume she's ignoring the Eastern religions that gave us tantra, the kama sutra, etc.

2. As someone who has chosen to forego relationships and thus sex for mature, responsible, adult reasons that have little to do with religion, I get tired of the promiscuity/polyamory/"fuck till you drop" crowd standing so haughtily in judgment of those they hypocritically condemn for judging their sexual preferences and even of those of us who could care less about their sexual preferences.

I can't tell you how many times some "enlightened" soul has told me that I'm a prude or need to be "turned out" because I prefer not to engage in meaningless and generally unsatisfactory one-night stands. I've been there, done that VERY WELL and decided it didn't live up to the hype. That's MY decision. It's MY life. It's MY body. What business is it of theirs to decide that something is wrong with me because my sexual preferences don't run towards cheap thrills with random strangers or jumping in bed with a woman before the check comes on our first date? And like that young woman's husband, I hardly need "medical attention" so that I can have sex when I don't want to, now do I?

3. I'm really tired of people like Greta deciding that the only way to deal with problems surrounding sex is to have as much of it as possible with as many people as possible as if that's the end-all, be-all, cure-all of human sexuality. The problems described in the young woman's letter (as noted in the response) could very well have been solved by mature, responsible, healthy CONVERSATIONS about sex (preferably ones where the poor man is NOT told that his not having a constant erection requires the help of the nearest little blue pill).

Anyway, that's my Valentine's Day rant. You're probably wondering why this is on Liberals in Exile rather than Cult of Melinda since my sex life is generally not polite political conversation. I think, in this case, it fits into the major social debates about sex. If I'm wrong, sue me.

Shooting at Louisiana Technical College

2008-02-08T12:54:00.000-05:00

No details yet other than that a woman shot two students and herself in a classroom. I have a friend who attended LTC and I can't tell you how happy I am that she's at ULL now. More later.

Health Care Inequalities: Personal

2008-01-01T19:45:00.000-05:00

Imagine that you're sitting at home and begin feeling ill. You're having trouble breathing and become disoriented. Your face is a bit swollen. Your only experience with these symptoms is a previous history of allergic reactions, but you can't imagine how you would have been exposed to the thing that makes your body go haywire like this. You do the smart thing. You call 911.

Weak and disoriented, you try to give the paramedics the information they need to help you. You're probably getting some things wrong, because you can't think and you're gasping for breath every time you speak. The paramedic puts you immediately on oxygen, an IV and a heart monitor. She checks your stats.

Your heart is racing and your blood pressure is bottoming out, but you don't know this. You're getting more disoriented by the second, you're fighting to breathe and you're terrified.

The paramedic injects Benadryll into your IV. Nothing. Your stats are out of control, so she makes the hard decision and asks her partner for epinephrine. Your mind is chaos, but you know what that means somewhat. She tells you that this is going to raise your heart rate and you ask if your heart rate is low. You sound so weak and frightened that you don't recognize your own voice. "No, but this is going to make your heart race and it might hurt a bit." While she gets ready to push the epi into your IV, her partner jumps out, slams the doors and gets in the driver's seat.

What she doesn't tell you is that intravenous epinephrine is the last ditch effort to ward off complete circulatory collapse. The epi hits you hard. It feels like hammers hitting the inside of your chest and skull. Your hands and feet, deprived of oxygen, freeze into claws as the muscles constrict and become temporarily paralyzed. You hear the paramedic screaming into the radio but you understand very little. All those nights watching ER pay off when the few words you do understand come through loud and clear. "We need a crash cart at the ambulance bay, STAT!" And you're off, with lights flashing and sirens blaring.

At the hospital, you struggle to sit up as instructed and to answer the questions being tossed at you left and right by the medical personnel swarming around you. You keep getting stuff wrong. You just don't know how to keep it all straight. Despite the paramedics' notes and the nurses' report, the doctor all but writes you off. He takes no tests and doesn't even do a full exam before deciding you probably just have an infection and walking out. The nurse brings you an antibiotic and a pain pill. You think for a moment that you're not in pain so you shouldn't take the pain pill. You think to ask the nurse, but she interrupts your thoughts with a question. Confused, you take them both and ask if the epinephrine was for nothing, then. The nurse does a double take with shock on her face, but says nothing. You can go home. (You'll find out later that standard procedure with intravenous epi injections is 24 hours observation in the ICU.)

Later, your family stops at the pharmacy to pick up your prescriptions and you decide to use the cool blood pressure machine. You're barely able to stand straight. Your blood pressure is low and your pulse is racing. You're so mind-fucked by this point that it barely raises a question in your mind. You go home and get into bed. Everyone's left. You're alone. You could die but you're too exhausted to care or to notice.
----------------------

For you, this is hypothetical. For me, this is August 2, 2004, the day of my first major cardiac event. For too many women, this is the quality of care they get when they have heart disease.

By the time this happened, I'd been having cardiac symptoms for approximately 2 years. Despite seeking medical attention multiple times, no one looked at my heart. After a lot of tests in 2003, I was misdiagnosed with mild gastric reflux and told to take Prilosec. It did nothing. I complained that the pain was excruciating. I could eat spicy food and feel nothing, but when I laid down to rest or sleep, my chest would start hurting like hell. I was having typical symptoms of heart disease. I was ignored and demeaned.

Not long after this, through a casual encounter with my aunt's blood pressure/pulse monitor, I discovered that I was in near constant tachycardia. My heart rate was constantly way above normal. The disease with which I've now been diagnosed, Prinzmetals Variant Angina or Prinzmetals Syndrome, had damaged the electrical pathways to my heart. Finally, someone looked.

I have one of the least favorable presentations of this disease, to put it mildly. My arteries are structurally normal and clear of blockages and plaque. My blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. are fine. My arteries simply don't function normally. They regularly spasm, decreasing or completely stopping blood and oxygen flow to my heart. When that happens, I go into serious arrythmias. My heart starts skipping beats in what's called atrioventricular block or my heart rate goes wild or both. It hurts. It hurts A LOT.

In a study published in 2003, 42% of patients who went into severe arrythmias during vasospasm experienced sudden cardiac death due to heart attack, stroke or fatal arrythmia during the two years of the study. I've been symptomatic since 2002 and having serious arrythmias since at least 2004. Do the math.

I'm lucky to belong to a support group over at Yahoo groups. (There are too few of us to have a support group in any one place, so thank you, Al Gore!) In the time that I've belonged to the group I've learned that my story is not unique. Nearly all of us can talk of being ignored, belittled, and demeaned by doctors who know too little about this rare disease. Nearly all of us received delayed diagnoses and misdiagnoses before finding out what was wrong.

We're working now on compiling a full questionaire to find out as much as we can about what we all have in common and how we've each individually experienced this disease. Hopefully, we'll learn something. We're also trying to find a way to bring more attention to this disease. I think it's about time that I use my mad journalist skillz for something more important than bitching about the latest Republican scandal or abuse, so I'm wracking my brain.

If you're an editor or fellow journalist who might be interested in bringing attention to an orphan disease like Prinzmetals and to those of us who suffer from it, feel free to e-mail me at mbb250 AT yahoo DOT com. (I swear, despite the weakness of my blogging, I'm actually a damned good writer when I have the time to work on something or I'm committed to it or I'm getting paid for it. Really. I have a reference or two if you'd like. NYU don't make no bad journalists.)

Health Care Inequalities: Sources

2008-01-01T19:09:00.000-05:00

What if the quality of medical care offered you depended on your race or your gender? I wish that were a hypothetical question. Unfortunately, a variety of scientific studies have shown that whether you receive proper medical treatment does in fact depend on your race and gender.

MSNBC carries a report on a study that recently appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association and demonstrates that minorities are less likely to receive pain medications when necessary.

The San Jose Mercury News has more on racially-based quality of care disparities in the treatment of lung cancer, heart disease and other life-threatening illnesses.

Women, like racial minorities, often fall prey to delays, misdiagnoses, and disparities in quality of care. This article from the Portland Business Journal (although dated 2005) has one of the best in-depth explanations of the problems facing women with heart disease.

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services' Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has a nice list of links about disparities in healthcare for minorities and women, with the focus on women.

There's only so much room in a blog post. But these sources will help you see a bit of the scope of the problem. Each year, hundreds of thousands of people die unnecessarily because they weren't given the kind of aggressive care that would have been offered had they been of a different gender or race. Need I point out that this is unacceptable?

Ethnic Cleansing in L.A.

2007-12-31T12:04:00.000-05:00

According to CNN.com, Latin gangs in L.A. are "cleansing" their neighborhoods by killing any black person they see. African-American gangs are doing the reverse. Although only a small portion of overall gang violence, this is still seriously disturbing.

Merkdorp Psuchix: Hanukkah Hate Crime

2007-12-31T11:49:00.000-05:00

J. J. Ramsey has an interesting post on an anti-semitic attack on a New York subway that began when a Jewish man said "Happy Hanukkah." No, really, that's it. He said "Happy Hanukkah" and the thugs went on the attack. My favorite line is this:
"Oh, Hanukkah. That's the day that the Jews killed Jesus."

Remembering the Shoa

2007-12-28T15:25:00.000-05:00

Bora's mom guest-blogs at A Blog Around the Clock on her trip to Israel to attend a conference for Holocaust Child Survivors.

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V

The Year In Review

2007-12-28T11:31:00.000-05:00

For this one, you're supposed to post the first line of the first post of each month. I thought that was an interesting idea, so here we go.

January: It really is unbecoming to present oneself (even implicitly) as the defender of reason and science while spewing irrational and unscientific nonsense.

February: How do you pay tribute to the woman who determined your destiny?

March: Five lesbians having an orgy in a cage.

April: Terry Jones takes on the disparities between the treatment of British sailors in Iranian control and the treatment of suspects at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

May: Nightline apparently thinks it appropriate to air a challenge between Christians and Atheists, which could be a potentially enlightening debate IF the representatives from each side were even remotely representative of most Christians or most Atheists OR if each side was represented by competent experts.

June: A Blog Around the Clock has linked to my criticism of Bloom and Weisberg's "Why Do Some People Resist Science?"

July: I know how exciting you find the tax codes, so today, boys and girls, we're going to learn about 501(c)3 and its many applications.

August: My last Shmulevich post was reasonable.

September: Can you figure out who said the following things?

October: Posting has been very difficult as of late due to a.) extreme busy-ness on my part, b.) lots of houseguests and c.) the hate-hate relationship between my ISP and my laptop’s software environment.

November: This is one of those questionable interpretations that I was writing about yesterday.

December: My apologies to my libertarian friends, but this is too funny to pass up.

After doing this and reviewing some of my posts, I've realized that (on my blog, at least) I use a lot of sentence fragments, usually for effect or for short-hand labeling of links. That's a potentially bad habit that I think I'll be keeping an eye on in the coming year.

RIP: Benazir Bhutto 1953-2007

2007-12-27T16:45:00.000-05:00

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is dead. So many often ask "Where are the moderate Muslims? Why aren't they standing up to the extremists?" Bhutto and her millions of followers stood up to extremists and dictators every day. Even in the face of death threats, house arrests, and assassination attempts, they continued to stand. Thursday in Pakistan, Bhutto and at least 20 of her followers died the death of martyrs, murdered by a man who fancied himself a blessed martyr but went to Allah the cursed killer of martyrs. Those who loved and respected her fight on even now. Salam Alekem, Prime Minister, and thank you.

Who knew libertarians were so funny? (Sorry, Drew.)

2007-12-06T10:34:00.000-05:00

My apologies to my libertarian friends, but this is too funny to pass up. I found this page on the libertarian positions on education. Note that the first position claims sympathy for poor children being stuck in poor schools. Then, note the second and third positions advocating the elimination of public schools and compulsory education, which means that (just as they did prior to the establishment of public schooling and compulsory education) most poor kids will go to no schools. Yeah, that's a solution. Better no school than a poor school. Better complete illiteracy than a "bad" education. Let's take your education out of the hands of credentialled experts and put them into the hands of your overworked and potentially uneducated parents. I mean, come on, kids, if you'd had the good sense to choose better parents and a better socioeconomic environment for yourself, you wouldn't have to worry about not learning how to read. HIGH-larious. Let's just hope they plan on eliminating child labor laws too so that those lazy ragamuffins who aren't getting an education can at least find a job in the mines!

UPDATE:

So, they do support the elimination of child labor laws:

We support repeal of laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws, so-called “protective” labor legislation for women and children…

Fear not! Those lazy bastards who decided to be born into poverty won't be getting health care either. Eliminate poverty by killing off poor children! Maybe if these mattress-back poor people had to bury enough children, they'd get the hint and stop having them. Interesting solution, some would say a "final" solution.

We support an end to government-provided health insurance and health care.

BEFORE ANYONE ASKS, THE PRECEDING HAS BEEN AN EXAMPLE OF SARCASM! THE WORD "LIBERALS" IS IN THE TITLE OF THIS BLOG FOR A REASON!

Medical Update

2007-11-21T16:26:00.000-05:00

If you read my other blog, you've probably already read my profanity-filled rant. If not, here's why life sucks. I've been diagnosed with Raynaud's disease, another vasospastic condition sometimes associated with Prinzmetal's syndrome. So, for those of you keeping score, that's vasospasm in my coronary arteries (Prinzmetal's), vasospasm in my extremities (Raynaud's), and cerebral vasospasm (migraine headaches). My cardiovascular system is really getting on my bad side.

Knowing, however, makes me feel a little bit better. When I know, I can act. It also makes me feel a little less crazy and explains why I've been getting pretty severe pain lately when I hold iced drinks. I hadn't thought of that until after my diagnosis when I was checking out the Raynaud's Association site.

Anyway, I'll be doing a lot of shopping this weekend for things to keep me warm and hold off the spasms in my extremities. This is, of course, the worst time of year to shop. If you know me, you know that Melinda and shopping should not be in the same sentence. So, you can imagine how horribly excited I am.

I'm just really glad that I'm such a total badass or I might actually let all this crap get me down.

Prinzmetal's Variant Angina

2007-11-17T20:10:00.000-05:00

Just as a public service, here's a great article on PVA. Unfortunately, much of the material publicly available is out-of-date and thus inaccurate. If you experience chest pain at rest, especially in the night and morning hours, contact your doctor and ask to be checked for PVA. A warning: Since PVA is a rare condition affecting only 4 out of every 100,000 people, many doctors have no idea what PVA is, so you may need to fight the system as it were. Also, multiple examinations may be necessary for proper diagosis. Good luck.

Fighting to Live

2007-11-17T16:13:00.000-05:00

My apologies if I don't post for a while or respond to your comments. I think I've hit the wall. Even now, it's a bit difficult to type with my hands shaking. It's one of those times when I have to fight death. How successful I'll be is anyone's guess. I'm grateful to the people in my support group, who are probably some of the few people in the world who can understand what it's like to live with Prinzmetals and how often those of us who suffer from it must face our own mortality. I'll be seeing the doctor Monday. Wish me luck.

The Prodigy

2007-11-15T20:59:00.000-05:00

Catana at Gifted and Grown has an interesting post on the new wunderkind Ainan Cawley.

I must admit the topic of giftedness and the treatment of those who fit the term always elicits both empathy and dread on my part. Empathy because I was one of those kids so labeled. Dread because acknowledging that always comes with the risk of sounding egotistical. That dread is, in and of itself, an interesting phenomenon, for it is not an irrational fear but a sort of post-prodigy stress disorder.

I was once the wunderkind, remarkable but unremarked. I was unfortunate enough to be born into a working class family that couldn't martial the resources necessary to give me a top-notch education. I had to rely instead on thrift store copies of Plato and college textbooks picked up at the latest garage sale in some neighborhood I could only dream of living in. Due in part to the semi-anonymity afforded me by my class, I was also fortunate enough not to end up in the media spotlight like Ainan. The attention I did receive, in the end, left me feeling like a freakish hybrid, part trained seal, part carnival sideshow exhibit.

That feeling hasn't quite left me even now. A friend once asked if it was weird for me to be an adult now and therefore no longer a prodigy. I didn't know what to say. Relieved is hardly an answer anyone would understand and not quite accurate at that. But how do I explain a childhood filled with nights when I fell to my knees, sobbing, begging what I hoped was a just and merciful G-d to make me normal? How do I manage a socially acceptable level of humility while explaining that the word that applies to adults like me is the dreaded "g" word? How can I even say the "g" word without cringing, waiting for the look that accuses me so eloquently of self-obsession?

Ironically, in a society consumed with self-marketing, selling a high IQ ranks alongside prostitution and dealing in illicit drugs in the respectability category. Maybe I should drag some potential "genius junkie" into a dark alley for a free peek at my WEIS III results (with promises of a future look at my Mensa invitation naturally). It sounds a bit bitter, I'm sure, but I've been pimped and there's no going back. So, I'll explain quantum physics or foreign policy for you if you'll give me a little to support my information habit.

Anyway, still trying to negotiate my own post-prodigy anxieties, I read stories like Ainan's and I want to cry. His parents obviously want to look out for his best interests, to ensure him the opportunity to fulfill his potential, but walking the streets of the prodigy district is no easy task. I wish him the best. As for this old "data whore," I'm going to bed.

Gender and Evolutionary Psychology

2007-11-14T19:54:00.001-05:00

Slate's The XX Factor takes on evolutionary psychology. The discussions in response are quite interesting, especially the number of people who defend evolutionary psychology with irrational and ridiculous arguments. It all takes on a f*cking for chastity feel after a while.

Toxic Trailers

2007-11-13T22:18:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you've heard by now that the FEMA trailers/mobile homes given to victims of Katrina who returned to the Gulf Coast, including some of my family members and friends, have toxic levels of formaldehyde gas. This has been known for some time as many people have become ill and complained. The government put off a proper investigation (allowing Katrina victims to live in highly toxic environments), have given these trailers/mobile homes to survivors of the California wildfires and have even offered to donate some to Native American tribes. I think of my sister, niece and nephew in one of these death traps and I really want to go down to the FEMA offices and give them more than just a piece of my mind.

Here We Go Again!

2007-11-12T22:07:00.000-05:00

Pharyngula has a couple of links to a couple of so-called "manly men" trapped in the days before real manhood evolved in Western culture. It always amazes me that someone could think that forcibly dominating a dehumanized, demoralized human being who happens to have a vagina makes them superior. Perhaps it's the Native American in me, but I always thought that conquering one's self was far more manly (and far more womanly). Hell, conquering one's self is just plain more mature.

I'll say it again: When women are demeaned, men are lessened. (And vice versa) When we women are infantilized and objectified, you men are infantilized and animalized. Personally, I think more of men (most of them anyway) than to accept that they are nothing more than children or animals, without the intellectual or emotional maturity that comes with human adulthood.

--------------------------

Sort of off topic, but it reminds me of something quite funny. When the Jamestown colonists landed, the women stayed on the boat while the men prepared the fort. When Powhatan's scouts saw these strange pale humans building houses, they were amazed that they'd brought no men with them! In Native societies, for the most part, women built the houses, tilled the fields and, where necessary, dismantled and moved the village to the next location. Female warriors, sachems and chieftains were not the norm by any means, but they were quite common. In fact, amongst the 32 werowances (or minor chieftains) who ruled the 32 villages that made up Powhatan's domain, two were women (at the time the colonists landed).

Evolutionary Psychology: The Non-Science?

2007-11-10T10:43:00.000-05:00

Criticisms of evolutionary psychology and the tendency of those working in the field to speculate wildly in a sort of ultra-Darwinian fervor are rather commonplace. Stephen Jay Gould, for instance, issues strong and compelling challenges to ultra-Darwinism, of which evolutionary psychology is but one facet. So, I'll let greater scientific minds take on the field as a whole.

I'd like to focus on the ultra-Darwinists' (to borrow a term) fascination with presenting religion as a delusion or a defect in human mental programming. Too often this leads to ridiculous claims and studies that lead to conclusions that could never actually be derived from the data itself. For examples of this, I'll refer you to Professor Allen McNeil's blog, The Evolution List and a paper by one of his students relating to the detection of agency.

My "favorite" study from evolutionary psychology is I read about quite some time ago, which I have unfortunately not been able to find online. In this study, the researchers constructed a computer program where one group of dots on a computer screen seemed to follow a single dot across the screen. They asked study participants to describe what they were seeing. Most responded with something like, "That swarm of dots is chasing this other dot, attempting to capture it." The researchers interpreted this to mean that the participants had assigned agency to an inanimate object, the dots, and that this was empirical verification of an agency-detection mechanism that was set so high that it would produce false-positives. This and similar studies have often been cited as evidence that religion, especially the belief in deities, spirits, angels etc. is a product of a defect in this agency-detection mechanism.

Professor McNeil's student, Elena Broaddus, explains:

There is also evidence for the existence of an innate cognitive purpose-detector which would be the root cause of our teleological viewpoint. experiments show that infants as young as 9 months of age tend to interpret the movement of self-propelled dots on a computer screen as “intentional, goal-oriented movement (Csibra, et al., 1999),” and are also able to interpret other people’s body-movements as goal-oriented and purposeful (Behne, et al., 2005).

The bulk of research referring to purpose-detection, or “agency-detection” as it is
more frequently referred to in this literature, assumes its existence as a cognitive process and uses it to explain religious thought. Essentially the argument is that purpose-detection arose as a hair-trigger response to possibly threatening circumstances in the natural world, but because of its over-activity (it’s frequently referred to as the Hyper-active agent detection device, or HADD) led to detection of super-natural agents (Barrett 2000; Boyer 2001; Atran & Norenzayan 2004).

Therefore, according to this argument, religion itself is evidence for innate
purpose- detection ability. As Atran & Norenzayan (2004) write, “Supernatural agents are readily conjured up because natural selection has trip-wired cognitive schema for agency detection in the face of uncertainty.”

Most of these ideas are an extension of Guthrie’s theories of animism and anthropomorphism, which he also then uses as a causal explanation for religion. He
argues that in the environment of evolutionary adaptation it would have been beneficial for humans to be able to quickly and easily identify the presence of other people and animals with harmful intentions. Therefore, the evolution of an extremely sensitive detection system was favored which would have been triggered by anything with the slightest resemblance to a living thing because there would have been no evolutionary disadvantage associated with false-positives. His evidence for this theory includes the phenomena of people hearing voices in the wind and seeing faces in the clouds (Guthrie 1993, 2002).

To some of you, the patent ridiculousness of some of these interpretations are probably obvious, but I'll tackle them anyway. We'll start with the dots. Yes, the subjects described the display in anthropomorphic terms, but I would argue that the researchers could have interpreted this in ways that are far more reasonable than their ultimate conclusion, that the participants assigned agency to the dots.

First, we in modern society are accustomed to interpreting symbolic representations. The display of a group of dots "following" another one can be quite reasonably interpreted as a symbolic representation of swarm behavior and thus, described as such.

Secondly, anthropomorphism is commonly used as a short-hand method for describing objects and events. Usually, these descriptions are abstract and not intended literally. How many of you have describe mechanical problems with your car as your car having a "bad day" or being in a "bad mood"? Now, how many of you actually believe that your car LITERALLY has thoughts, feelings, intentions, moods, etc. in the way that a person does? Precisely.

Wouldn't you agree then that interpreting this study as evidence of an "agency detector" is highly suspect and a bit silly? Just because the participants described the display in terms of agency, this doesn't mean that they actually assigned agency to the dots on the screen.

The same goes for 9 month-old children (unable to speak about what they're seeing) supposedly interpreting "the movement of self-propelled dots on a computer screen as 'intentional, goal-oriented movement'". How does one possibly know what a 9 month-old's interpretations are? Especially since other studies have shown that infants respond differently to a gloved hand grasping for an object before and after they are shown that the gloved hand is part of a human being. In other words, they don't see the "inanimate" glove as having a goal but see the "human" hand as having one.

What is more, how do we make the leap from seeing faces in clouds, a practice based on seeing similarities between objects, to detecting agency where there is none? Again, most of us do NOT assign agency to inanimate objects based on their similarities to known agents. We don't assume that the rabbit-like cloud would like to eat carrots or that the "face" in a wood-grain pattern has a mind behind it.

Finally, it is far from evident that, even assuming an agency detection mechanism, false positives would pose no evolutionary disadvantage. If you're out hunting and a mere rustle in the grass sends you running, it is hardly likely that you'll be able to complete your goal of finding food. If you interpret both the rustling leaves and the actual lion as both being potential threats, the inability to distinguish between the real threat and the fake one could get you killed. And obviously, the constant stress of seeing potential dangers everywhere would be severely damaging to your health and your body's ability to respond appropriately in an emergency situation. Paranoia is hardly functional or adaptive.

So, what is the basis for these questionable interpretations? I'll refer you back to Ms. Broaddus:

The bulk of research referring to purpose-detection, or “agency-detection” as it is more frequently referred to in this literature, assumes its existence as a cognitive process and uses it to explain religious thought.

The data is being fit to the hypotheses rather than the hypotheses to the data. Those who view religion as a defect find support for their ideology in these ridiculous interpretations. They must ignore reason and a whole host of contradictory evidence to do so. They must, in the end, ignore the standards of science and embrace pseudoscientific claptrap.

George W. Bush: Baby Killer

2007-11-08T20:20:00.001-05:00

In this week's New Scientist, Robert Adler has a stirring essay on the growing rate of infant mortality in the South. Unfortunately, it's behind a subscription wall, but please read it if you can.

--------------------------------------

According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has a higher rate of infant mortality than 41 of the 221 nations listed in their rankings. Which countries have lower mortality rates? Amongst the 41 are South Korea, Cuba, Slovenia, Malta, Macau and a variety of countries in Eastern Europe, Western Europe and Asia.

While nationwide infant mortality rates have gone down overall, we are still above 2001 levels and many states' rates have remained stagnant or risen. (An increase in infant deaths between 2001 and 2002 represented the first increase in infant mortality since 1958.) Of all the states, Mississippi has been hardest hit, although D.C. has a slightly higher rate.

Why are more children dying? There are a variety of possible reasons, including a greater preponderance of older mothers. However, these stats are predominantly a result of a decrease in access to healthcare for America's poor and working poor. Welfare reform on the national and state levels, a decrease in the availability of local health clinics, decreases in the number of healthcare providers who'll accept Medicaid, and a rise in the ranks of the uninsured and underinsured have all contributed.

Despite this growing healthcare crisis in our country, George W. Bush has vetoed Congress' attempt to renew and expand SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Attempts to override Bush's veto passed in the Senate but failed in the House. He is expected to veto a second and even third compromise versions of the bill, so Congressional Democrats are working hard to negotiate enough votes for a veto override. If Congress fails to pass a new temporary funding bill for the program and is unable to override Bush's veto, the program will run out of money and an additional 6 million children and an untold number of pregnant women will be without health insurance.

With the disappearance of SCHIP, infant mortality rates are guaranteed to rise in the coming years, especially in states like Mississippi. If the rate goes up by a single point, as many as 4,000 more infants will die every year (based on an average of 4 million births annually). That's 4,000 infants below the age of one. Add to this thousands of children below the age of five and thousands of pregnant women. IN AMERICA!

This is a national disgrace! We should all hang our heads in shame.

Boycott Sweden!

2007-11-07T20:21:00.000-05:00

Despite the general hotness of their women, Sweden is now on my shitlist! Apparently, "freedom of religion" as a basic human right doesn't translate into Swedish these days. According to LifeSite:

The government of Sweden has announced it will be banning any religious activities in schools except for those directly related to religion classes. It is also directing that in religious education, religious ideas must not be taught as though they are objectively true. A columnist in the UK’s far-left Guardian newspaper has urged Britain to follow suit, implying that Britain’s Catholic and Jewish schools are a terror threat...

The rules will make it illegal even for faith-based schools to teach that religious doctrines are objectively true on the grounds that this would be “prosetylising”. Prayer, including religious services or assemblies, will remain legal, as long as no teacher in a classroom teaches that there is any reality behind it...

Included in the proposals was a pledge that the Swedish National Agency for Education will double the number of inspections for both private independent and state-run schools. Schools will also be required to report their funding sources. Schools that fail to adhere to the new standards could face fines or even government-enforced closures. 67 elementary schools and six high schools have a religious confessional orientation in Sweden. The new rules will require Parliamentary approval and are set to come into effect in 2009.

To make matters worse, this idea has picked up support in both Britain and the United States. (Be sure to read the comments. There are some voices of reason but they are few and far between.) This is just one source, a quick Google of the issue leads to far too many sites supporting the decision and "wishing" or suggesting that the policy should be taken up in the UK, US, worldwide etc.

As I've stated ad nauseum, I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state, both to protect the state from the church and to protect the church from the state. I'm also a firm believer in the first amendment (which admittedly doesn't apply in Sweden) for the very reason that it prohibits the government from both establishing religion and interfering with its practice. These principles are, in my humble opinion, central to the preservation of pluralistic free societies and vital to the protection of human rights.

To say that I'm sickened by this development would be an understatement.

I'm Kosher and That's Okay... So Mind Ya Bizness!

2007-11-07T18:03:00.000-05:00

As I travel the highways and byways of both real and virtual life, I often encounter people who think it extraordinarily important to pontificate on kosher dietary laws. (From all the huffing and puffing, you'd think we Jews ate Matzo soaked in the blood of Christian children or something.) Having become extremely frustrated with this obsession amongst the goyim, I think I'd like to pontificate right back.

Before I start, however, let me be clear up front. I don't speak for all Jews, most Jews, the worldwide Jewish conspiracy or pretty much any Jews but the one sitting at the keyboard. This is just one Jewess' opinion on why, the next time you feel the need to comment on my avoidance of cheeseburgers, you should take a moment, reflect and mind your own damned business.

Yes, I follow millenia-old dietary rules. No, I don't think G-d is going to condemn me to Hell, pelt me with brimstone or sentence me to a lifetime of hellacious flatulence for eating pork or shellfish or the aforementioned cheeseburgers. I don't know any Jews who do. No, I don't do it out of a need to celebrate my ethnic heritage. (That would be why I eat corned beef and cabbage, not why I eat matzo and bagels.) You see, I chose to be a Jew and I figured why do it half-assed when I can be a bad-ass, kosher-eating, Hebrew-speaking, Torah-reading, Sabbath-observing Jewess with Irish eyes and Choctaw cheekbones. (That's right, achayot. All the sexy goodness of a shiksah without the guilt.)

So, what is it to you? Yeah, I know. All these non-kosher foods are so tasty, it's just "ridiculous" and downright "wrong" for me to avoid them like a rabbi avoids a woman on her period. You would never make such irrational decisions about your food or let some cultural/religious nonsense influence what you eat. In fact, your food choices are all about edibility, healthiness and taste, right? Nonsense.

Why then don't you eat: dogs, cats, guinea pigs, monkeys, chimpanzees, baby seals, whales, sharks, possums, squirrels, raccoons, horses, sea turtles, polar bears, rats, etc.? More likely than not, something on that list "turned your stomach" for reasons you may not be able to explain. You may even have moral reasons for not eating some or all of them. Yet, all of these animals are edible, as healthy or more so than pork, and rather tasty according to the cultures that consume them. (As are we or so I've heard.)

So what's the problem? You're human. All humans and their cultures have food preferences and taboos. In fact, there are laws in this country against eating some of the animals on the list. If you treated a dog or cat in the way that livestock are treated on factory farms, you'd be charged with cruelty to animals.

Anyway, next time you feel the need to get in high dudgeon over the millenia-old dietary laws followed by us wacky Jewish types, think about your own food issues and mind your own business for once. No one's forcing you to follow kosher rules. You're free to eat what you want and avoid what makes you queasy for whatever reason (rational or irrational) you deem appropriate. So are we. Get it?

Warning: Extremely Sad Story

2007-11-06T19:16:00.000-05:00

A beautiful little girl born with eight limbs due to a "parasitic" twin will undergo life-saving surgery to remove the extra arms and legs.

UPDATE: Surgery was a success!

Coup in Pakistan/Democracy in Venezuela

2007-11-06T17:56:00.000-05:00

So, Gen. Musharraf (I refuse to call him President.) has called a "state of emergency," suspended the constitution, and moved to crush dissent. Meanwhile, in America, Pres. Bush (I wish I didn't have to call him President.) has half-heartedly rattled his saber while simultaneously patting Musharraf on the back. Surprising? I wish.

Far too often, American leaders have preferred strongmen over democracy, despite the U.S.'s oft-repeated rhetoric about spreading freedom around the globe. From the Shah of Iran to Saddam Hussein to Augusto Pinochet to the House of Saud to Pedro Carmona to Pervez Musharraf, our nation has a habit of supporting brutal dictators, even going so far as to participate in the overthrow of democratically elected governments. Democracy is messy and unpredictable. Strongmen are easier to bribe and control. (Or so we've deluded ourselves into thinking.)

Bush's willingness to play with strongmen has been evident since he looked Vladimir Putin in the eye, decided he "liked the guy" and gave the Russian autocrat a "cute" Frat-boy nickname. Or maybe, it started when he hosted the Taliban in Texas. For sure, he's been willing to pour money into Musharraf's coffers despite the fact that he illegally seized control of Pakistan's government in 1999.

Will Musharraf's abandonment of any pretense of democracy change matters? Hardly. Bush has made it clear that he wants Musharraf and the military in charge of Pakistan. I doubt he'll change his mind simply because Musharraf has done what Bush has plans to do here in the event of a second major terrorist attack.

It is interesting, though, to compare Bush's response to Musharraf with his response to Hugo Chavez. Duly elected by his people multiple times, Chavez has the backing of most Venezuelans and much of Latin America. During his presidency, he has created one of the most democratic nations in the Americas and through democratic processes, given Venezuela a new constitution. Time will tell whether Venezuela will become even more democratic still or whether Hugo Chavez will become too enamored with power to cede it when his time comes. Recent events seem to indicate that the latter is more likely.

Bush's response to a duly elected president? Although the 2002 coup that ousted Chavez from power lasted only 48 hours, the Bush administration managed to acknowledge the government of Pedro Carmona in record time. (The U.S. was the only country to do so.) It is more than coincidental that Carmona and other coup leaders had been meeting with Bush in the weeks prior to their brief but violent takeover of Venezuela's elected government. In fact, the Bush administration was intimately involved in the plot. Since then, the Bush administration has regularly demonized Chavez, secretly funded opposition parties, pursued policies of "containment" and ordered increased CIA activity in the country.

So, the president who "plans" to spread freedom around the globe is patting a brutal, repressive dictator on the back while plotting the overthrow of a democratically elected president. How I wish that was a surprise.

Yes, I know I missed a day...

2007-11-05T15:20:00.000-05:00

I just came across an interesting post on "The Atheist Jew" about a particularly anti-semitic remark by Richard Dawkins. Crawling my way through the blogosphere, I found quite a lively discussion going on about Dawkin's characeterization of the "Jewish lobby" and his anti-Zionism. (Just Google Dawkins and zionism for hours of interesting if often sickening reads.) I also found a surprising amount of anti-Semitism amongst a group that so loudly proclaims its "rationality."

We'll bypass the obvious ignorance and bigotry of anti-Semitism and instead delve into the anti-Zionism running amok as anti-Semitism's more publicly "acceptable" little brother. (Debunking the Jewish lobby myth would be far too easy.)

The thing I find so fun about some atheists' response to Zionism is that they condemn it, in part, because it's a theistic or "religious" movement in their minds. Odd thing is, Zionism began as a secular movement and still is for the most part, with Zionists predominantly focusing on Jews as an ethnic group. Devoutly religious Jews are predominantly OPPOSED to Zionism, as they believe that only the Messiah is supposed to rebuild Israel. Many Orthodox and Haredi Jews refuse to even acknowledge the existence of Israel. Some even attended Ahmedinejad's Holocaust denial conference, not because they don't accept the fact of the Holocaust but because they're opposed to the use of the Holocaust as justification for the creation of Israel as an independent nation in 1948.

In addition, many like Dawkins and Sam Harris cite the Israel-Palestine conflict as proof of the danger of religion and the inevitability of conflict wherever religion exists. The truth behind this so-called religious conflict is far more complex and puts a lie to the favored ideology of men like Dawkins.

Although allowing some unconscionably theocratic giveaways to the Orthodox in matters of family law, Israel was founded predominantly as a secular state for predominantly secular reasons. The Jews, as both religious minority and ethnic minority were oppressed, repeatedly exiled, ghettoised, massacred, etc. for 2,000 years, culminating in the Holocaust. Is it any wonder that some would see a Jewish state as the only hope? (Zionism, not so coincidentally, didn't become popular amongst most Jews until the pogroms and the Holocaust.) Interstingly enough, the Palestinian Liberation Organization was also originally a secular organization made up predominantly of Marxists with some Christians amongst the leadership. The religious elements came into the Israel-Palestine conflict only after the 1967 war, a generation after the founding of Israel and the beginning of the conflict. Even to this day, the "religious" elements both liberal and Orthodox have limited influence on Israel's policy-making apparatus and are often opposed to its policies.

Why would Dawkins and his ilk distort the well-known historic truths about Zionism, Israel and the so-called "Jewish lobby?" Blurring the lines between fact and fiction, between reason and bigotry suits the ideology of certain elements within the atheist community, specifically those antitheists and antireligionists who go far beyond the desire to live freely and openly and instead pursue fantasies of dominance and superiority. The former is an admirable goal held by most reasonable people, atheists and theists alike. The latter is a bigoted ideology and a form of extremism that should be anathema to reasonable people of all faiths and none.

Very Cool and a Bit of a Relief

2007-11-03T21:26:00.000-04:00

I'd known for quite a while that there was a problem with the way I see color, but I pass all colorblindness tests. I show up as having normal color vision. But then there is the reverse colorblindess test, where you should only see the patterns if you ARE colorblind. I pass that too. So, somehow I'm both colorblind and not colorblind. I e-mailed the designer of the test and discovered that, while there is no known explanation for how this occurs, I'm not the only one it affects. Apparently, there may be something a bit different about either my eyes or my visual cortex. No one knows for sure. It's a bit of relief to know I'm not nuts.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Enlist

2007-11-02T18:38:00.000-04:00

The above was the headline in my hometown newspaper one morning during the time that I was applying to West Point. (I never enlisted for obvious reasons.) See Dispatches from the Culture Wars to see how the DADT policy has harmed those who would fight, kill, and die in your name as well as the military's ability to defend us pre and post-9/11.

Klan v. Klan

2007-11-02T18:21:00.000-04:00

Ed Brayton has an even funnier post on the Alabama chapter of the KKK's plan to protest the National KKK. Yes, you read that right.

The "Lesbian Mafia" Conspiracy

2007-11-02T17:54:00.000-04:00

Okay, first no one told me about the roving pink-pistol-packing gangs of lesbians. Now, I have to hear second-hand info on the lesbian conspiracy to turn the U.S. into a Lesbo Amazon Nation? I'm so filing a complaint with the Lesbian Shadow Government.

Anyway, Ed Brayton, who shall henceforward be known as "friend of lesbians," has a great post about the so-called "Lesbian Studies Institute." (No, there are no lesbians in schoolgirl outfits!)

Apparently, lesbians rule the world when the Jews are on vacation. We Jewish Lesbians never get a day off. Sheesh! I'm exhausted. This running the world really takes away from my man-bashing time.

And somehow, the witches are involved in all this too! Micah, if you're reading this, I knew you were up to something with your witchy ways. We're going to have to work out territorial rights or something.

This really counts as a post

2007-11-02T08:43:00.000-04:00

I'm trying to do the post a day thing, but I might have to cheat. Like today, I'm just going to post a question I have for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton... even if that's cheating or whatever. Anyway, Clinton has gone on record defending "traditional marriage" whenever gay marriage pops up. Soooooo...

Sen. Clinton, do you truly support "traditional marriage" as it has been defined throughout the majority of American and Western history?

If so, why should we, the people of the United States, elect chattel to the office of the presidency? After all, we wouldn't vote for Bill Clinton's car for president. Under "traditional marriage," a man's wife and his car have the same legal standing.

If not, why is "traditional marriage" all of a sudden so important ONLY when it comes to denying marriage rights to those you deem beneath you? (No, Sen. Clinton, I'm not one of those "house homos" deluded enough to think you care one whit about our rights.)

Finally, can you ask your husband how a man who wouldn't know the sanctity of marriage if it bit him in his sizeable ass could possibly grow testicles large enough to sign something called the "Defense of Marriage Act?"

Spoiler Alert: Which Room Is Haunted?

2007-11-01T15:00:00.000-04:00

This is one of those questionable interpretations that I was writing about yesterday. Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire uses these pictures "to study whether people have preconceived notions about the appearance of a haunted site." He interprets that people choose the left room because it "fits the stereotype". In other words, it's "creepier."

I'll admit I picked the left room, but not because it looks "creepier." I don't find anything particularly creepy about plumbing. I picked it because old pipes make strange noises that someone may interpet as disturbing or creepy. I'm familiar with old ghost tales and their "explanations." I'm also familiar with the sound of old pipes and their "ghostly" noises.

So, assuming that many people may be familiar with the strange noises made by old pipes, how does this "experiment" justify the interpretation? I don't think it does.

Very Interesting But Old News for Halloween

2007-10-31T16:46:00.000-04:00

Why believing in ghosts is more "normal" than we realize.

I have a problem with the interpretations of some of the data. For instance, thinking it's creepy to wear a sweater worn by a serial killer doesn't mean we necessarily think the sweater's "infected." Yelling at computers doesn't necessarily mean that we think they're "conscious." Anthropomorphism as an abstract tool for speaking or thinking about complex topics is very common. In most cases, these anthropomorphisms aren't taken literally by the "speaker" and not expected to be taken literally by the "listener."

I'd put this down to bad science journalism if it weren't for the published science papers and articles (by scientists) I've read. This is a much bigger topic than I have time for, but I'd like to take a look at it later on.

Until then, Happy Halloween or Happy All Hallow's Eve or Happy Samhain to you and yours. If none of these fit you, Happy Wednesday.

I Can Write Clearly Now....

2007-10-29T15:43:00.001-04:00

Posting has been very difficult as of late due to a.) extreme busy-ness on my part, b.) lots of houseguests and c.) the hate-hate relationship between my ISP and my laptop’s software environment. Unfortunately, writing more than a sentence or two during my lunch hour or (heaven forbid!) during work hours has not been possible. (I’m looking over my shoulder as we speak.) I’m sure you’ve missed me horribly but fear not! Thanks to the awesome, wonderful, amazing Don, I now have a new computer.

Now, for Don’s sake and my own, I’ll point out that there was no requesting, begging, cajoling, caterwauling or blackmailing on my part. This was entirely a spontaneous act of generosity. Yes, Don ROCKS! Thank you, Don.

Anyway, as soon as a.) I figure out Windows Vista enough to get it properly configured for my needs b.) I can tear myself away from Chess Titans AND c.) I am houseguest-free, I’ll be back to my old posting self. Advanced warning: This will exclude Thanksgiving week, as I’ll HOPEFULLY (Cross your fingers!) be out of town visiting my family and good friends for the first time in 2 years.

Well, that about does it. Back to work.

Why Don't You Know the Difference?

2007-09-24T12:38:00.000-04:00

I've just finished reading Pharyngula's response to Mark Morford's article on the supposed collapse of the religious right. The original source of these claims seems to be this Newsweek piece on the Democrats courting evangelicals.

I'll have to go into more detail later as these people who give me money biweekly insist that I do this thing called work. But I'll leave you with the thing that should make you go "hmmmmm...?" Why is it that educated, presumably well-read Americans can't tell the difference between the religious right and the neocons? Why do people not get that the damage inflicted by the religious right (which shouldn't be underestimated) is a pittance compared to that inflicted by the neocons? Anyway, more later.

Presidential Factoids: Fascism on the March

2007-09-23T10:00:00.000-04:00

The following facts describe an American president whose egregious policies and actions pushed this nation closer to fascism than it had ever been before.

*He said, "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the freedoms of ordinary Americans."

*A member of his cabinet and one of his closest advisers told USA Today, "The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress are irrelevant. ... America's domestic policy is now being run by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, and America's foreign policy is now being run by the International Monetary Fund [IMF]. ...when the president decides to go to war, he no longer needs a declaration of war from Congress."

*He signed an executive order granting the president dictatorial powers in the event of an "emergency" declared by the president. What would constitute such an emergency was never defined.

*He signed hundreds of executive orders in order to bypass Congress' constitutional role of providing "advise and consent" to the Executive branch. Many of these orders went far beyond his constitutional powers as president.

*He ordered the CIA to "destroy Al Quaeda." Under his orders, the CIA created a program of "extraordinary rendition" whereby terrorism suspects would be handed over to foreign nations "without strict human rights records" in order to circumvent American law. Many of these suspected terrorists would be tortured by our "allies."

*He used the FBI and IRS to go after political opponents, including opposition political and activist organizations.

*He oversaw the deregulation of the telecommunications industry, leading to increased concentration of corporate control over the nation's media and a narrowing of the available spectrum of opinion.

*He drew his party to the right, arguing that it should fall in line with corporate interests.

*He expanded the federal death penalty, making it applicable to dozens of new crimes. Among those new capital offenses were a variety of crimes that did not result in death, including drug trafficking.

*While a state governor and candidate for president, he left the campaign trail and returned home to personally witness the execution of a profoundly retarded death row inmate. This inmate was on antipsychotic medications, had been lobotomized, and was so blissfully unaware of the import of what was happening that he decided to save his dessert to enjoy AFTER the time scheduled for his execution.

*According to a Sixty Minutes report, former intelligence officials who worked on the program, and government officials from Britain and the European Union, he conducted a massive secret spying program that monitored the phone calls and e-mails of millions of American and British citizens. The NSA has admitted that this program collected and leaked more than 1,000 pages of information on a member of the British royal family. According to an EU report, some of the information obtained through this top secret program was sold to top political donors to be used against their competitors.

*His policies led to a 70% increase in anti-gay discharges from the military, costing the United States vital personnel, including Arab language translators.

The president? William Jefferson Clinton.

Never believe that the road to fascism began with George W. Bush. Never believe that the prior bad acts of previous presidents excuses the acts of this administration. What is happening in our country (and has been happening for decades) is an affront to our nation's values and the Constitution that created the world's oldest democracy.

It is no coincidence that our current Dictator-in-Chief is the grandson of one of the conspirators who plotted to overthrow the democratically elected president of the United States in a fascist military coup. Let's hope that George W. Bush makes the same mistake his grandfather and his co-conspirators did when they attempted to recruit the wrong Marine. Prescott Bush et al. underestimated Major General Smedley Butler's loyalty to his nation and his oath to protect her against all enemies foreign and domestic. Let's hope that there are Smedley Butler's still. And while we're hoping, let's actually do something about it.

The Answers to the Quiz

2007-09-17T12:55:00.000-04:00

The answer to all 7 "who said it?" quotes was d. 1 & 2 were the work of Jean Jacques Rousseau. 3 was David Hume. 4 & 5 were Arthur Schopenhauer. (I realize that Schopenhauer was 19th Century, but I think we can agree that his place on the tail end of the Enlightenment puts him in a group with the other Enlightenment philosophers.) 6 & 7 were Immanuel Kant.

The point? So many like to argue that X problem was created by religion and solved by "rationality." Considering the actual history of the development of modern Western ideas on race, gender, and sex, the interpretation is highly questionable. The quotes given are just (forgive the cliche) the tip of the iceberg when it comes to "rational" justifications for factionalism, ignorance and bigotry.

One could add to the above the work of 18th, 19th and early 20th century scientists, including those no less influential than Carolus Linnaeus (a pioneer in scientific racism),Charles Darwin (who argued for a progressive hierarchy of races and female inferiority as a product of sexual selection), Sir Francis Galton (the father of eugenics), and Sigmund Freud (no explanation needed, I think).

Scientists and philosophers of the Englightenment and the proceeding centuries (many of them atheists) promoted racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-sex hysteria and a whole host of other social ills. Whatever religion's contribution, (and I don't doubt that there is one) rationality was no "savior."

I'll leave you with a couple quotes from Darwin:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

"Men attain a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women - whether requiring deep thought, reason or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands; If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music history, science, and philosophy, with half a dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer from the law of the deviation from averages, that the average mental power in man must be above that of women."

Quote Quiz: Who Said It?

2007-09-07T22:04:00.000-04:00

Can you figure out who said the following things? Your options are: a.)a Muslim cleric, b.) a Talmudic scholar, c.) a famous Christian theologian and d.) a renowned Enlightenment philosopher. No Googling.

1. On masturbation: "Therefore, watch carefully over the young man; he can protect himself from all other foes, but it is for you to protect him against himself. Never leave him night or day, or at least share his room; never let him go to bed till he is sleepy, and let him rise as soon as he wakes. Distrust instinct as soon as you cease to rely altogether upon it. Instinct was good while he acted under its guidance only; now that he is in the midst of human institutions, instinct is not to be trusted. It must not be destroyed, it must be controlled, which is perhaps a more difficult matter. It would be very dangerous if instinct taught your pupil to divert these senses and to supplement the occasions for satisfying them. If once he acquires this dangerous supplement he is lost. From then on, body and soul will be enervated; he will carry to the grave the sad effects of this habit, the most fatal habit which a young man can be subjected to."

2. On masturbatory "rape": "This vice, which shame and timidity find so convenient, has a particular attraction for lively imaginations. It allows them to dispose, so to speak, of the whole female sex at their will, and to make any beauty who tempts them serve their pleasure without the need of first obtaining her consent."

3. On race: "I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered the symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly."

4. On women: "One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labour. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man’s without being essentially happier or happier. […] Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses it’s wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason."

5: On women: "As a consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, woman has a smaller share of the advantages and disadvantages these bring with them. She is, rather, a mental myopic […] One must say that the fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies … Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one … A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them."

6. On illegitimate children and infanticide: "Legislation cannot remove the disgrace of an illegitimate birth … A child that comes into the world apart from marriage is born outside the law … and therefore outside the protection of the law. It has, as it were, stolen into the commonwealth (like contraband merchandise), so that the commonwealth can ignore its existence (since it was not right that it should have come to exist this way), and can therefore also ignore its annihilation."

7. On rape: "No matter what torments I have to suffer, I can live morally. I must suffer them all, including the torments of death, rather than commit a disgraceful action. The moment I can no longer live in honour but become unworthy of life by such an action, I can no longer live at all. Thus it is far better to die honoured and respected than to prolong one’s life … by a disgraceful act … If, for instance, a woman cannot preserve her life any longer except by surrendering her person to the will of another, she is bound to give up her life rather than dishonour humanity in her own person, which is what she would be doing in giving herself up as a thing to the will of another."

Freaky Cephalopod

2007-08-31T10:45:00.000-04:00

Despite our many differences, I have to admit that PZ Myers can't be all bad. After all, anyone who can be this funny about a cephalopod deserves a nod.

Warning: This may not be safe for work. I had to swallow a rather large laugh. Not good for the digestion.

Do You Know What It Means to Miss New Orleans?

2007-08-29T15:53:00.000-04:00

The Birth of Dragons

2007-08-28T13:12:00.000-04:00

For those of us who pretend to be elves, dwarves, palladins or rogues in our spare time, dragon stories are an endless source of fascination. Live Science has an interesting look at how real-life creatures inspired the tales of fire-breathing reptiles fond of kidnapping maidens and barbecuing medieval villages.

I'm Just Saying...

2007-08-21T13:28:00.000-04:00

You might want to read this.

Sam Harris in a Nutshell

2007-08-18T15:46:00.000-04:00

Most theists, in attacking Mr. Harris' arguments, have noted his profound ignorance of the finer points of theology. Although they are correct, I've chosen to avoid arguments based on theology for the most part because I believe such arguments are too easily dismissed by Mr. Harris and his supporters. It is not that I myself reject theology, only that I wish to reach an audience that, I believe, wants the cold, hard facts. So, laid out here and in my four part review of Letter to a Christian Nation are the cold, hard facts.

Mr. Harris' arguments are consistent with his ideology. They are not consistent with either the evidence or the basic rules of reason and logic. In the space of a mere 91 pages, Letter to a Christian Nation is filled with inconsistencies, logically fallacious arguments, factual inaccuracies and outright lies. In addition to Mr. Harris' previously noted ignorance of theology, a reasonable reader must admit that Mr. Harris has demonstrated either an intention to deceive or a profound ignorance of history, politics, economics, current events, basic common sense, and the findings of science in regards to human nature and behavior.

In the end, the only thing this book proves is that an atheist can be just as ignorant, fanatical, and dogmatic as any religious fundamentalist. Of course, what can one expect from a man who, in his previous book, argued that it may be ethical to kill people for their beliefs?

Review: Letter to a Christian Nation Part IV

2007-08-18T15:35:00.000-04:00

I'm back. I know you missed me. So, here's a really long post for you.

"Our competing religious certainties are impeding the emergence of a viable, global civilization." (p80)

Really, now? I would argue that human nature (as revealed by science) and conflicts between a whole host of social, political, and economic systems impedes the emergence of global civilization. Remove religion from the world and a global civilization created by universal consensus would still be impossible. There is a reason that, in the course of human history, the only truly globe-spanning civilizations were created by force and exploitation for the benefit of the home country and at tremendous cost to conquered peoples.

Primatologists examining our nearest biological relatives have shown that cohesiveness in primate groups is limited both by primate brain structure and the number of individuals with which a particular individual can have direct physical contact through grooming. Based on this information, British anthropologist Robin Dunbar has theorized that humans are able to maintain social relationships with a maximum of 150 people. Beyond this number, known as Dunbar's number, societies must create and enforce strict social rules if they are to function. Beyond this number, human societies begin to break themselves into subgroups such as clans, where negotiations between subgroups replace social relationships between individuals.

As the number of individuals in a society increases, subgroup structures become more numerous and complex, social rules increase in number, and hierarchical governmental structures arise. When deciding how to organize a complex civilization, humans have come upon a variety of systems, of which religion is but one. The conflicts between these systems and the values upon which they depend would make global civilization difficult if not impossible. Survey the difficulties that have beset our modern globalization efforts and religion fades into the background: free trade v. fair trade, the instability of democracy v. the brutality of dictatorship, the economic interests of the strong v. the survival of the weak, human rights v. corporate profit, capitalism v. communism v. socialism v. fascism, national pride v. equality between nations, environmentalism v. the exploitation of natural resources, etc. ad infinitum.

Unfortunately, this basic limitation to the human capacity for group cohesiveness leads to tribalism, ethnic rivalries, racism, sexism, nationalism, and all too often, intergroup and intragroup conflict. One need only glance at human history and current events to see that religion is far from necessary for the creation of conflict. In fact, the overwhelming majority of human conflicts have had little or no relation to religion. The most fundamental conflicts arise from competition for basic resources: potable water, arable land, hunting grounds, inhabitable territory, security, etc. The next level arises when one group grasps for a standard of living far beyond basic necessity at the cost of other groups. The history of imperialism and the spread of dominant civilizations reveals our capacity for violence up to and including genocide for precious stones, precious and not so precious metals, fossil fuels, access to trade, and other means to wealth and privilege. In the cyclic turns of human events, yesterday's victims become today's oppressors when those who once suffered seize the opportunity for revenge. (I'll refer you to the Rwandan genocide, where 500,000 Tutsis were murdered and countless more raped, tortured, maimed, and permanently displaced from their homes when the Hutu took their vengeance for the Tutsis' position of privilege during colonialism.)

"Second, far greater numbers of people fall into conflict with one another because they define their moral community on the basis of their religious affiliation [...] Conflicts that seem driven by terrestrial concerns, therefore, are often deeply rooted in religion". (p81)

In addition to the arguments above, I'd like to address some of the examples Mr. Harris gives to support his claim.
Palestine: Deeply rooted in religion? Hardly. First, a survey of the history of global Muslim-Jewish relations shows far more cooperation than conflict. Muslims and Jews lived together for more than a millenium with relatively little conflict when compared to the history of Christian-Jewish relations. Secondly, just a few decades ago, Israelis and Palestinians readily engaged in personal and business relationships with one another. Even today, in some of the border settlements, Israelis and Palestinians regularly engage one another peacefully. Secondly, any honest assessment of the situation would reveal that occupation by a foreign power and the resulting daily indignities and deprivations is the primary cause of Palestinian hatred for Israelis. On the Israeli side, the inability to tell friend from foe when dealing with the Palestinians, the increasingly difficult security situation, and the death toll of hundreds of terrorist attacks (carried out by a small minority of Palestinians) has fostered hatred of the Palestinians. On both sides, tit for tat calls for revenge lead to a constant escalation of the conflict. If you think this is just because of the religious difference, I'll advise you to ask the Muslims of Lebanon how they felt about being occupied by their fellow Arab Muslims.

Northern Ireland: Again, a situation where invasion and occupation by a foreign government lead to historical and modern indignities and deprivations for the indigenous population. Yes, as in the Palestinian case, the differences in religion between the two peoples allows easy identification of the two groups (although I'd point out that there are Muslim Israelis and Christian Palestinians); however, religion is hardly the source of the conflict. In fact, the seizure of lands in Northern Ireland to bring Ulster under control in the 17th century and Cromwell's subsequent seizure of 80% of Irish land to pay for the English Civil War are at the root of the "Irish Problem." Some people, including Richard Dawkins, have pointed to linguistic and cultural similarities between the two peoples to argue that religion is the source of conflict. I'll point out that these linguistic and cultural similarities are the result of British imperial policies and that this cultural genocide provides further justification for Irish resentment of the British. (Gaelic is the indigenous language of Ireland for those who don't know.) I'll also refer you to a former member of the British Empire that initiated a brutal, prolonged war for home rule despite being English-speaking and predominantly Protestant: the United States of America.

The Caucasus: While this is a case of Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims according to Mr. Harris, it is yet another case of a foreign power that invaded, occupied and brutally exploited the indigenous people according to, well, the facts. The Chechens have been fighting against foreign rule since the 15th century, first taking up arms against the Russians when that nation attempted to spread its influence into the Caucasus for strategic reasons (maintaining communications with Georgia) in the 18th century. Neither the Russian occupation nor the Chechen opposition to foreign rule were based on religion. In fact, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin's decision to deny Chechnya the right to secede from Russia was politically and economically motivated. (His arguments included the precedent it would set for other Russian territories and Chechnya's position in the oil infrastructure.) I'll refer you to the resistance movements of the former Soviet Republics and Soviet-occupied territories.

"Most nonbelievers, liberals, and moderates apparently think that no one ever really sacrifices his life, or the lives of others, on account of his religious beliefs. Such people simply do not know what it is like to be certain of Paradise." (p82)

Isn't it lovely how reasoned debate allows you to make up ridiculous beliefs for your opponents? Oh, wait. It doesn't? Could've fooled Mr. Harris, apparently.

No intelligent person of any stripe would believe that no one ever sacrifices his life or the lives of others due to his religious beliefs. In fact, martyrdom (the sacrifice of one's life rather than surrendering one's religious beliefs) is a key factor in all three Abrahamic religions. Jews who died rather than convert under threat of death during the Crusades were martyrs. Christians who were thrown to the lions because they would not deny their G-d were martyrs. Muslims who died to protect Muslim lands from Christian Crusaders were martyrs. And yes, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Bhuddhists, Pagans, etc. have killed in the name of their religions, either to spread it or to protect it. Of course, it would be dishonest to deny that atheists have sacrificed themselves and others in their attempts to eliminate organized religion in Revolutionary France, the Soviet Union and its territories, Albania, China, North Korea, Cuba, and North Vietnam.

It's all beside the point. The true beliefs of those nonbelievers, liberals and moderates who oppose Mr. Harris' arguments are similar to those I've discussed here with a few more throw in. They are:
1. Factionalism and violence are part and parcel of human nature.
2. The majority of human conflicts have not been based on religion.
3. Defining the term "religion" leads to such fuzziness and subjectivity that little can be said about religion as a whole rather than about specific, concretely described behaviors and beliefs.
4. Each human being and each human society is influenced by such a wide variety of factors that tracing most problems to just one of them is all but impossible.
5. Humans have committed both the highest of goods and the worst of evils in the name of religion.
6. Humans have committed both the highest of goods and the worst of evils in the name of (insert any political, economic, social, or moral philosophy here).
7. Humans have committed both the highest of goods and the worst of evils in the name of (insert human desire, value, emotion or interest here).
8. Eliminating religion will not accomplish what Mr. Harris thinks it will.
9. If we believed it would, even the religous liberals and moderates would jump on Harris' bandwagon, although we'd probably wonder how an eternal and nearly universal aspect of human culture can be destroyed without recourse to the very factionalism, violence and brutality we'd be attempting to eliminate. Remember those people willing to die for their beliefs?
10. If we look at religion carefully, examining all of its aspects, we see religion and reason overlapping far more than they conflict and far more than Mr. Harris would care to admit.
11. Etc. (I don't think I can provide an exhaustive list of the beliefs of all nonbelievers, liberals and moderates.)

As for Mr. Harris' claim about Paradise and his later follow up that liberals and moderates also don't know what it means to really believe in G-d, I'd argue that:
a.) He's obviously not very well versed in theology since most religious liberals and moderates believe they're going to Heaven or Paradise. By definition, all liberal and moderate theists believe in G-d. They simply define G-d and morality differently than Mr. Harris and his presumed ultra-conservative, literalist audience.
b.) Many religions don't have an afterlife or like Judaism, have one afterlife for everyone. Yet, their followers are still willing to sacrifice themselves. Paradise is obviously not a sufficient explanation.
c.) Islam, for one, offers guaranteed paths to Paradise that are a lot easier, less controversial, and less destructive than suicide bombing. We need a bit more than Islam to explain why young men would choose suicide bombing in particular and why it is such a recent phenomenon in the Muslim world.
d.) Many people, like the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, have sacrificed themselves and others without either religious beliefs or a belief in an afterlife. We therefore need something other than religion to explain self-sacrifice and terrorism.

"Throughout Europe, Muslim communities often show little inclination to acquire the secular and civil values of their host countries, and yet exploit these values to the utmost, demanding tolerance for their misogyny, their anti-Semitism, and the religious hatred that is regularly preached in their mosques." (p84)

Strange that in the U.S., where opportunities for immigrants are greater, Muslims have embraced our secular and civil values. Strange that Muslim Turkey is one of the most secular countries in the world. Is it the Muslims or is it Europe's infamously anti-immigrant policies? I'll hold out the possibility that it's both but you'd have to provide a lot of evidence to convince me that this is solely a Muslim problem. I'd also caution Mr. Harris against praising Europe's secular and civil values when some European countries (England, Denmark, Andorra, Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Norway, Scotland, Serbia, and Montenegro) still have state religions or state churches and where freedom of speech is limited by what the majority is willing to tolerate. (I'll refer you to laws that criminalize Holocaust denial.)

"It is now a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to realize why this is so--it is because most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religous faith." (p85)

Yes, despite the evidence of science, history and basic common sense, let's argue that reform can't be imposed from the outside because Muslims are deranged. That's rational. (Is my sarcasm evident? It's so hard to express tone properly in writing.)

I think it's obvious if you've followed the political debates, that this has become a truism in part because imposed reform has almost never been successful anywhere and it has never been successful without the consent of the people. Most if not all human societies don't take well either to foreigners meddling in their affairs or to their nation's policies being set to benefit foreign powers. (I'll refer you to the uproar over the possible involvement of China in Clinton's election campaign or the role of Saudi Arabia in America's pre and post-9/11 policies for the Middle East.) This is especially true when you're talking about imposing democratic ideals in a part of the world that has only recently emerged from centuries of foreign occupation. Imposed democracy is kind of an oxymoron, don't you think?

"It accomplishes nothing to merely declare that 'we all worship the same G-d.' We do not all worship the same G-d, and nothing attests to this fact more eloquently than our history of religious bloodshed. Within Islam, the Shi'a and the Sunni can't even agree to worship the same G-d in the same way, and over this they have been killing one another for centuries." (p86)

Amazing how Harris manages to so thoroughly contradict himself in the space of three sentences. Either religious bloodshed is proof that we don't all worship the same G-d or we partake in religious bloodshed despite worshipping the same G-d. You can't have it both ways.

I'd go on, but to be honest, I've grown tired of Mr. Harris. I'll do a brief general review in the next post, but then I'll move on.

Why the Blogosphere is More Full of Shit Than Pace's Koran

2007-08-02T12:14:00.000-04:00

My last Shmulevich post was reasonable. This one will be very emotional. You should stop reading now if that offends you.

Anyway, here’s why I think the coverage of Shmulevich and the Chicken Little ranting of the blogosphere is waaaaaaay out of hand. I’ll number it because I’m just not in the mood for a coherent, well-constructed argument at the moment.

1.)The blogo-phonies are comparing the Shmulevich case to a whole lot of completely unrelated situations in some weird attempt to bolster their arguments that Sharia law is somehow being imported into the U.S. or that thought-crimes will be prosecuted here. It’s all complete BULLSHIT!

Shmulevich’s actions (if indeed it was Mr. Shmulevich) must be taken in context. They are not equivalent to “Piss Christ” as Mr. Shmulevich didn’t create an art installation out of materials he himself owned in order to express an opinion. They are not equivalent to carrying an anti-Muslim sign in a legitimate, legal protest or writing a paper critical of Islam and turning it in for a class assignment since neither of the underlying acts is illegal and neither is necessarily intended as a threatening or intimidating message, nor should they be taken as such. They are not equivalent to Mr. Shmulevich desecrating a Koran that he himself owned on his own property or as part of a public protest against Islam, as neither of these would be related to an underlying crime. Making these comparisons is just plain STUPID and dishonest.

2.)Muslims are not being protected above and beyond anyone else. Laws that protect people from religious discrimination and hate crimes based on religion cover EVERYBODY. If a Muslim student had stolen a Bible from a University’s Christian center and desecrated it in the same way to send a threatening message to Christians, it would be a hate crime! Especially if, as in this case, it took place amongst a rash of other hate crimes.

3.)The New York Police are not trying to protect Muslims from merely being offended. The laws as they exist and as they’re being applied are meant to punish religious-based threats, harassment and intimidation. We have no freedom from offense. We do have the right not to be harassed, threatened and intimidated. We also have a right not to be harassed, threatened and intimidated because some jackass doesn’t like our religious beliefs.

4.)This is not a blasphemy charge! This is not about protecting the Koran (as a book or symbol) anymore than prosecutions of cross-burnings are meant to protect the cross (as a wooden artifact or symbol). Note that many of the people responding to this incident have insulted and demeaned Muslims and blasphemed the Koran, all without fearing that they’re going to be arrested.

Why? Because they damned well know that it isn’t a blasphemy charge, but it bolsters their victimhood mythology, allowing them to conveniently pretend that protecting a religious minority from threats and intimidation is somehow a violation of their right to freedom of speech. These sniveling keyboard jockeys wouldn’t know “freedom of speech” if it jumped up and bit them in their well-used asses. (Unfortunately, all these whiny nincompoops crying “freedom of speech” every damned time someone sneezes at them impedes the struggle of those who have real “freedom of speech” issues.)

5.)These people also have obviously no freaking idea what it is to be on the receiving end of hate crime. Well, you know what, I’ve been there. So, let me give you and them a little piece of my mind.

Not long after I came out, I was brutally attacked by a large group of guys who decided that my existence as a gay person bothered them. If it weren’t for a split-second reflex, I may very well be dead now. Instead, the softball-sized hunk of concrete they’d thrown directly at my fucking head scraped the side of my head as it flew past. This was only the first of many incidents.

Yes, that’s a far cry from what Mr. Shmulevich did, BUT I can tell you for damned sure that if someone had broken into the LGBT center, stolen the pride flag and left it floating in the toilet beneath a pile of shit, I would have considered that message received. You can damn well be sure that you wouldn’t have found me out alone on campus! You can also be damned sure that I would have watched my back every damned second I was in public!

But let’s move past the hypothetical. Do you want to know the lasting effects of the harassment, threats and intimidation I’ve received just for being gay? In my entire adult life, I’ve NEVER walked down the street holding hands. EVER! I’ve even learned to walk with my hands behind my back any time I’m walking with a date or girlfriend, because my NATURAL response would be to hold her hand! You try spending half of a date trying to make it look like you’re not on a date because you just really don’t want to take any crap from the passing rednecks!

6.)Based on the above experience, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever believing that the Koran in the toilet (TWICE by the way) was a message to the Muslim students of Pace that they should watch their backs. I have no problem believing that there are probably a lot of very scared young Muslim kids at that university right now.

And THAT’S why I have no problem believing that what Mr. Shmulevich did was a hate crime!

Volokh's Error: Hate Crimes Legislation

2007-07-31T14:56:00.000-04:00

In “The Perils of Hate Crimes Laws” and “The Schmulevich Case—Facts and New York Law, As I Can Best Figure Them Out”, Eugene Volokh gives us a tour of the slippery slope fallacy and a host of legal inaccuracies.

Volokh’s Huffington Post blog gives a brief, inaccurate introduction to the Schmulevich case followed by “hypotheticals that strike [him] as legally analogous to the Shmulevich prosecution.” His more detailed post on the Schmulevich case at The Volokh Conspiracy unfortunately twists reason and the standard interpretations of the law as they are generally applied.

A few too many commenters delve into Mr. Volokh’s motives rather than addressing his arguments, a logical fallacy which I’ll seek to avoid. However, I would like to note, in defense of Mr. Volokh, that I believe it is his misunderstanding of the law that leads to his slippery slope argument not any ulterior motives he may harbor. Because I believe that one follows the other, I’ll begin with the problems with Mr. Volokh’s legal arguments. (For simplicity’s sake, I’ll annotate any quotes from The Volokh Conspiracy piece as VC and the ones from The Huffington Post piece as HP.)

Mr. Volokh’s first problem is that he misunderstands how the law would determine whom would be considered the victim or victims of the crime involved.

“But it's pretty clear that Shmulevich isn't guilty under this provision, because his victim was Pace University, which he didn't choose because of its religious affiliation.” (VC)

Is Pace University the sole victim of the crime? Mr. Volokh’s mistake seems to be in assuming that the victim in a property crime is solely the legal owner of said property. This is not the case. In Mr. Volokh’s defense, this is an easy mistake to make. (In most law books, judicial interpretations and definitions of terms involved in a particular statute may be located in a separate part of the section or code.)

In most legal interpretations, the victim in a property crime can be the legal owner, the person who leases the property, or the person for whom the property is set aside for use. For example, if the KKK vandalizes the home of an African-American family, the family members are considered the victims of that crime even if they’re only leasing the home. In the case of the Schmulevich case, since the “meditation room” was set aside for student use and the Koran was specifically provided for the use of Muslim students, the University’s Muslim students can be considered victims of the crime in conjunction with Pace.

“And there's no damage to premises primarily used for religious purposes, since ‘premises’ means a place (see, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary); the damage here was to a religious book, not a religious premises.” (VC)

Although the basic definition of premises is in fact “a place,” for legal purposes, the term premises can also include a building’s furnishings and contents, especially if those furnishings and contents are directly related to the building’s purpose. In the current case, the Koran would be considered contents directly related to the purpose of the meditation room, so that “damage to religious premises” would apply.

As for the harassment charges, which may or may not be pending against Mr. Schmulevich, we can apply the reasonable person standard. (I’ll note that we’re missing quite a bit of information here, so accuracy is not possible.) Would a reasonable person feel threatened or harassed by Mr. Schmulevich’s actions? We don’t know the contents of the argument or what events provoked it; however, considering that the events in question took place during a string of bias-related incidents on campus and considering that these are Muslim students in post-9/11 America, we can assume that a reasonable person could deem the events to be threatening or harassing.

These misunderstandings lead to Mr. Volokh proposing a variety of hypothetical cases (HP for all) that he believes could be prosecuted under hate crimes laws. Since none of these cases meets the standards set forth in hate crimes laws nor do they logically follow from reasonable interpretation of those laws, the argument falls under the slippery slope fallacy.

For instance, in the hypothetical flag burning case, the victim can only be considered the owner of the flag since there is no one leasing the flag nor is it set aside for anyone else’s use. Unless Mr. Eichman burns the flag specifically as an attack on the owner due to his beliefs with the intent to intimidate him or her, it cannot fall under hate crimes legislation. If Mr. Eichman went on the property of a veteran and set fire to his flag to send a threatening message to veterans, it could be a hate crime.

As for the cross case, we can assume the cross display is the property of the artist. The owner of the public housing project (the state) cannot be considered a victim of a hate crime. The residents may be considered the victims of a hate crime if the display reasonably constitutes vandalism and/or an act of intimidation (such as a Klan cross-burning or a swastika erected in a housing project filled with Holocaust survivors). If the display doesn’t rise to the level of vandalism and the artist’s intent is at worse to offend rather than harass or intimidate, it would not be a hate crime. Trespassing on state-owned property would be related to the hate crime but cannot constitute a hate crime in and of itself.

This last part applies to the minister case as well. Trespassing alone cannot be considered a hate crime. Harassment and intimidation, if they are also involved, could be considered a hate crime. For the minister’s behavior to rise to the level of hate crime, he would not only have to refuse to leave, he would have to harass or intimidate the Episcopal Church leader because of his views or sexual orientation. It’s highly unlikely that merely remaining on the property against the wishes of the owner after being invited in would be deemed a hate crime.

The final hypothetical requires us to consider what might happen if the current laws are extended to the point of absurdity and thus constitutes a slippery slope argument in and of itself.

“Such additional punishment is not, it seems to me, primarily punishment for the crime (since that would have been covered by the unenhanced punishment), or even for the discriminatory selection of a crime's target. Rather, it is punishment for the ideology that motivated the crime.” (HP)

“But it doesn't necessarily follow that the law should be free to increase the punishment not just because the criminal was discriminating in choice of victims, but because the criminal was hostile to some other person based on that person's religion, religious practice, sexual orientation, or race -- which often means that the criminal simply disapproved of some group, even when the target of the crime was not discriminatorily chosen.” (HP)

I can see how Mr. Volokh would believe that based on his misunderstanding of the law and how it applies to Mr. Schmulevich’s actions. However, with the law as it now stands and the relevant situation as it is interpreted under that law, this is not the case.

As many of the commenters point out, hate crimes laws are similar to many other laws that classify particular acts as more or less egregious due to motive or intent. Hate crimes laws are not intended to punish an ideology any more than laws that consider “crimes of passion” separately are intended to punish jealousy.

As Mr. Schmulevich has not yet been tried and the full evidence is not available, we cannot determine his guilt or innocence. However, the evidence as it is known supports a hate crimes prosecution. The targets of the alleged crime were the Muslim students of Pace, who were selected based on their religion and could reasonably interpret the events as a threat against their community.

“For more on the growing movement to specially punish speech that is blasphemous or otherwise offensive based on religion…” (HP)

Considering all of the above, the current situation does not “specially punish speech that is blasphemous or otherwise offensive based on religion.” If it were, that would be a violation of freedom of speech.

UPDATE: Foolish me. I wrote this not thinking about the fact that Mr. Volokh is a law professor. (I'll have to accept the egg on my face for that.) I gave Mr. Volokh the benefit of the doubt on motive and assumed he simply didn't get the particulars of the law as they applied. Taking into account his legal background, I wonder if a.) this isn't his area of practice, b.) he's really not that good at what he does or c.)he's intentionally distorting the legal facts in favor of his ideological stance. None of these things have anything to do with the quality of his arguments, which are poorly constructed and completely unbecoming someone of Mr. Volokh's stature. Just one of those things that make you go Hmmmmmmmm...

UPDATE2: I've been trying to find a web source for the extended definition of premises as it applies here with no luck. I've seen the broader definition used in the legal codes/opinions that I use for the day job, but finding this application when you're looking for it, especially one that you can link too is a bit frustrating. I unfortunately don't have a registration to some of the legal sites where this info could be found via a simple search.

However, consider this: If "premises" is defined too narrowly, a neo-Nazi group could enter a synagogue and destroy the pews, free-standing altar, candelabra, Torah scrolls, etc. and not be responsible for damaging the premises if the building itself is undamaged. Doesn't make sense, does it?

UPDATE 3: Christopher Hitchens has chimed in over at Slate. I wonder how "defenders of reason" like Hitchens can avoid the cognitive dissonance inevitably produced by writing irrational polemical screeds that distort the facts to fit their ideological agenda? Intriguing.

I'm Really Not Being Lazy

2007-07-26T16:33:00.000-04:00

My apologies for the delay in posting. It's been a rough week. I'll be back on the ball as soon as possible.

Review: Letter to a Christian Nation, Part III

2007-07-15T12:56:00.000-04:00

Back to Mr. Harris and his distinct problems with fact and logic.

On pp 43-45, Mr. Harris cites some overhyped statistics from studies of religiosity and social health that purport to show that the most religious nations are less "healthy" than the least religious and compare the U.S. to other nations in the developed world.

Although he admits that the correlations do not imply causation, (that religion doesn't necessarily cause social problems) Harris ignores the fact that there are substantial political, economic, historical and cultural differences between the countries being compared. For instance, some of the most religious countries have only recently emerged from decades or even centuries of colonialism. Also, the U.S. is an almost purely capitalist country whereas countries in Europe are predominantly social democracies.

Mr. Harris similarly ignores the difficult of measuring religiosity cross-culturally since the term has significantly different connotations from one society to the next. Unless we can control for all other factors so that religion is the only distinction between the societies being measured and control for the differing cultural interpretations of the word religious, these superficial correlations are meaningless.

Mr. Harris also makes the dreaded mistake of contrasting atheism with religiosity, where countries with low levels of religiosity are assumed to have high levels of atheism, leading to the conclusion that "these statistics prove that atheism is compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society."(p45)

Although I agree that atheism is compatible with civil society, Mr. Harris' reasoning on the matter is deeply flawed for a number of reasons. 1.) Atheism is the opposite of theism, not religion. 2.) There are atheistic religions like Jainism and Buddhism. 3.) There are many theists who reject organized religion and therefore do not consider themselves "religious." 4.) Only a very small percentage of people in the countries being compared actively identify as atheists. 5.) Studies of religious identification show that "nonreligious" and atheist are two completely different things. For example, while the UK is deemed far less religious than the U.S., 71% of the UK's population identifies as Christian compared with 77% of the U.S. population. The differences are not as significant as Mr. Harris would have us believe.

"The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is belied by other indices of social equality. Consider the ratio of salaries paid to top-tier CEO's and those paid to the firms' average employees: in Britain it is 24:1; in France, 15:1; in Sweden, 13:1; in the United States, where 80 percent of the population expects to be called before G-d on Judgment Day, it is 475:1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to pass through the eye of a needle." (p46)

In three sentences, Mr. Harris manages to get so much wrong that it will take quite a bit more than three sentences to set it right again.

First, Christian literalists are a very small minority in America. "According to a recent study, among the 15% of U. S. citizens that are evangelical Protestants, only 47.8% believe that the Bible is literally true, and 6.5% believe that the Bible is an ancient book full of history and legends. Only about 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants believe the Bible is literally true..." (Wikipedia) Doing some rough math based on the 77% of Americans who identify as Christian, this would mean that about 12.8% of Americans are Christian literalists, hardly enough to assume that American economic policy is determined by Christian literalism.

As for the four countries mentioned, these countries represent a spectrum of economic beliefs from the U.S. (the most capitalistic) to Britain to France to Sweden (the most socialistic). Is it likely that the ratio of CEO pay to that of the average worker may have something to do with these economic differences? Highly likely.

In fact, the change in the CEO pay ratio in the United States can be traced not to any religious factor but to the emergence of "free agency" for CEO's, who were previously chosen from within companies. As in sports, "free agency" for CEO's brought about a winner-take-all market and drastically increased the pay difference not only between the CEO and average worker but also between the CEO and lesser executives, who are still predominantly chosen from within. (I highly recommend The Winner-Take-All Society by Robert H. Frank and Philip J. Cook for anyone wishing to understand how these markets emerge and what they mean.)

Finally, I'll refer you to this chart provided by the University of Michigan, which shows the linear relationship between wealth and religiosity in the United States. Note that religiosity declines with increases in wealth. Therefore, it is safe to assume that those who make our nation's economic decisions (including CEO pay and the creation and management of winner-take-all markets) are the least religious amongst us.

"Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm 'of biblical proportions' would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Religion offered no basis for a response at all." (p53)

As someone who fled my home in New Orleans a mere 24 hours before Katrina, I'm personally offended by Harris' cynical manipulation of this event to make his crass little points. But I'll set that aside to deal with the facts.

The destruction of New Orleans had little to do with an "act of G-d" and everything to do with a failure of "science." If the levees (which were not designed by the Christian Church) had not failed, the city would have taken minimal damage, few if any people would have died, and I'd be at Cafe Du Monde right now having beignets with my friends. If it were not for the failures of "science" that led to shipping channels and oil platforms destroying the wetlands, New Orleans would have had a substantial land barrier between it and the Gulf and New Orleans would not have been destroyed.

No, religion couldn't have predicted the hurricane, but neither did science protect us from it. In fact, the opposite is true. Science not only left us completely unprotected, it ensured the destruction of our fair city. That science can now assess its own failures does not change that fact.

As for religion offering no basis for a response, I would point out the millions of religious Americans and dozens of religious organizations that provided assistance to those fleeing the city, helped to evacuate people stuck in the city, and helped Katrina refugees rebuild our lives. I'll also point out the resounding religious condemnation of the American government for failing to act as religious values demand. It seems to me that the government's response has also been deemed inept by by the light of religion.

"It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. It is time we acknowledged how disgraceful it is for the survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving G-d, while this same G-d drowned infants in their cribs. Once you stop swaddling the reality of the world's suffering in religious fantasies, you will feel in your bones just how precious life is--and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all." (p54)

I think it's about time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of a man who can pretend to be the arbiter of reality and reason while writing a polemical screed filled with factual and logical errors; a man who pretends that atheism alone allows one to "feel in your bones just how precious life is"; a man who cannot see that many of his "co-religionists" and fellow scientists have caused "millions of human beings [to] suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all" except that they were deemed unfit to breed due to physical or mental "defects" or deemed unfit to live due to their religious beliefs.

"Unfortunately, expressing such criticism places the nonbeliever at the margins of society. By merely being in touch with reality, he appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors." (p57)

More of the boundless narcissism and self-deceit for which Mr. Harris should be condemned. Again, I am stunned by the man's claims to be the arbiter of reality and reason considering his propensity for gross factual and logical errors. This polemical screed of his is hardly a testament to his "being in touch with reality." By the way, does this remind anyone of the "They hate us because we're free." school of thought? I absolutely condemn anti-atheist bigotry as I condemn bigotry of any form, but pretending that anti-atheist bigotry arises from the general population's bitterness over atheist "superiority" is ridiculous.

"While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in G-d still holds immense prestige in our society." (p67)

I always love encountering this argument. It's so easy to knock down. Belief without evidence is not considered a mark of madness or stupidity in most areas of our lives. Let me just note a few things that people believe in without evidence or despite the evidence so that you can see what I mean: string theory, multiple universes, serial universes born of black holes, the ultimate intelligibility of the universe, that the complexity of the universe can and will be expressed entirely with a few simple laws, that human life holds greater value than that of animals or plants, that science is a highly reliable source of factual information (despite the majority of information produced by science having been falsified), that we will succeed in creating artificial intelligence (despite our failures to get machines to complete tasks of which even small children are capable ). Need I go on? I don't think so.

"It is also worth noting that one can obtain a Ph.D. in any branch of science for no other purpose than to make cynical use of scientific language in an effort to rationalize the glaring inadequacies of the Bible. A handful of Christians appear to have done this; some have even obtained their degrees from reputable universities. No doubt, others will follow in their footsteps. While such people are technically 'scientists,' they are not behaving like scientists. They simply are not engaged in an honest inquiry into the nature of the universe." (p69-70)

I assume Mr. Harris is referring to proponents of intelligent design here. While his use of the "appeal to motive" fallacy is worth noting, I think it is more interesting that Mr. Harris cannot see how some of the scientists involved may simply be wrong. It is very possible for sincere and honest inquiry to result in a wrong answer. I'd like to know where Mr. Harris got his information on this new strategy of getting a Ph.D. in science (a difficult task indeed) solely for the sake of manipulating science. I also wonder if Mr. Harris realizes that the same dishonest argument could be made against him, that he is seeking a Ph.D. solely to crassly manipulate science to further the "atheist agenda."

"Any honest reading of the biblical account of creation suggests that G-d created all animals and plants as we now see them. There is no question that the Bible is wrong about this." (p71)

There is also tremendous evidence that the Bible was never meant to be a literal, scientific account of creation. Literalism, is in fact, a relatively new phenomenon dating to the Protestant Reformation and the tit for tat competition between Protestants and Catholics trying to prove their "fidelity" to scripture and therefore their supremacy in religious matters. So, I find it difficult to determine where Mr. Harris gets the authority to assert that the only "honest" reading of the biblical account is a literal one.

"Any being capable of creating a complex world promises to be very complex himself. As the biologist Richard Dawkins has observed repeatedly, the only natural process we know of that could produce a being capable of designing things is evolution." (p73)

This, I think, would fit in nicely with the "argument from personal incredulity" fallacy. First, because the existence of a deity may simply be a raw fact of the universe. Secondly, just because evolution is the only natural process we know of capable of producing a complex being, that doesn't mean that evolution is the only means by which a complex being can come into existence. Third, we cannot assume that natural processes and natural laws apply to the presumed creator of nature, who must by necessity exist independently of his creation and it processes and laws.

"Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists. Scientists, of course, readily admit their ignorance on this point. Religous believers do not." (p74)

Interesting that Mr. Harris refers to intellectual honesty just before treating scientists and religious believers as if these are two mutually exclusive groups. They're not. Mr. Harris's point is therefore ridiculous as it creates the problem of a single person (a religious scientist) who both admits ignorance and does not. Of course, Mr. Harris's statement about religious believers is also false since the question of why G-d created the universe (and thus why the universe exists) is a very old theological conundrum that has led to more than one admission of ignorance on the part of the religious.

I'll stop here. I'll tackle the last pages and provide a general review in upcoming posts.

Pink Pistol-Packing Lesbians

2007-07-11T11:36:00.000-04:00

Bill O'Reilly has really lost his mind this time. He's apparently done a piece about supposed lesbian gangs terrorizing America with their pink pistols, recruiting kids as young as 10 into the lifestyle, raping young girls, and randomly attacking heterosexual men. Yeah. Sure. Bill, the Lesbian Shadow Government is watching you. Be afraid. Be very afraid. We may tell your wife what orgasms are and then you're really in trouble.

Charity Options for Atheists

2007-07-09T17:23:00.000-04:00

Uncertain Principles has a long list of nonreligious charities for those who wish to give but may have concerns about giving to religious organizations.

Review: Letter to a Christian Nation, Part II

2007-07-07T11:16:00.000-04:00

In part II, we see Mr. Harris play with oxymorons and stereotypes and blatant hypocrisy.

"But we can easily think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a lawgiving G-d. For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need be only better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world." (p23)

The term "objective morality" is an oxymoron. We cannot test two moral standards by empirical methods and determine which is true or at least more true. We cannot compare moral truths to reality and see which ones fit.

The truth of this matter lies within Mr. Harris' own statement. For a moral truth to be objective, it would have to be viewed as equally valid by anyone who considers it. "Better and worse ways to seek happiness" are necessarily subjective.

Imagine being tied up and beaten with a whip. For most, this is suffering. For a masochist, this is pleasure. Can we have an objective moral rule for the production of happiness that says, "Don't tie people up and beat them with whips?" If this moral rule would deny pleasure to the masochist and thus would not be viewed favorably by him, it would be neither objective nor conducive to universal happiness.

"Indeed, religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are highly immoral--that is, when pressing these concerns inflicts unnecessary and appalling suffering on innocent human beings. This explains why Christians like yourself expend more 'moral' energy opposing abortion than genocide." (p25)

There are a few major problems with this statement. The first is covered in a limited way above. The term moral is so system-dependent that there is no objective way to define the term. Moral or immoral will be determined by a person or group's ethical system, whatever that may be.

Secondly, he assumes that his audience views abortion and genocide as two distinct moral issues. This is absolutely not the case. Although I would fervently disagree with this interpretation, we have to acknowledge that for pro-life Christians, abortion and genocide are the same thing. They view abortion as the taking of an innocent life without just cause aka murder. They view widespread abortion as the widespread, officially sanctioned murder of innocent "undesirables" on a massive scale. They view it as tantamount to genocide. For those who fight in the pro-life movement, what they are doing is nothing less that combatting genocide in their own country. As they could rightly believe that they as citizens and taxpayers are more likely to be successful at combatting "genocide" here than abroad, it would be quite reasonable for them to expend their moral energy here.

Third, many conservative and fundamentalist Christian organizations and individuals expend their "moral energy" lobbying the government to take a firmer stance and decisive action on a variety of human rights issues, such as genocide, human trafficking, child pornography, slavery, etc. There is great diversity within the religious right. Undoubtedly, we can find many instances where they are on the "wrong" side of an issue, but we can also find many instances where they are on the "right" side. In fact, when movements based on "scientific rationality" promoted the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of innocent men and women, the strongest opposition came from religious fundamentalists. When movements based on "scientific rationality" promoted euthanasia (not including assisted suicide), the strongest opposition came from religious fundamentalists.

"Your qualms about embryonic stem-cell research are similarly obscene. Here are the facts: stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine." (p29)

Mr. Harris then goes on to excoriate Christians for their opposition to stem cell research, including arguing that their "beliefs about the human soul are, at this very moment, prolonging the scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings." (p31)

While I can understand Mr. Harris' anger at the current anti-stem cell research movement and his faith in the potential of that research, what I do not understand is how he can then praise the Jainists, holding them up as a positive example of what Christian morality should be. (pp 11-12, 22-23) The Jainists do in fact have moral prescriptions against causing any living creature physical, psychological, or spiritual suffering. However, there is also a moral prescription against benefitting from the suffering of any living creature. The Jainists are therefore completely opposed to animal experimentation or the use of animal products in medicine. Unlike stem cell research, which has mere potential, animal experimentation and animal-based medicines have been repeatedly proven effective in easing human suffering and preserving human life. Is this mere inconsistency or outright hypocrisy? Or is Mr. Harris' giving Jainists a pass simply because they haven't yet been successful in getting a ban on animal research or having it defunded?

"Christians like yourself invariably declare that monsters like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim Il Sung spring from the womb of atheism. While it is true that such men are sometimes enemies of organized religion, they are never especially rational." (p40)

"Auschwitz, the Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia are not examples of what happens to people when they become too reasonable. To the contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of political and racist dogmatism. It is time that Christians like yourself stop pretending that a rational rejection of your faith entails the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma......I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs." (p42-43)

What a conceit! Atheism and atheists are here described as "especially rational," "what happens to people when they become too reasonable," "a rational rejection of [Christianity]," and "desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs." None of this is true. Even if we concede that there are no deities, it is highly possible for a person to embrace atheism for nonrational and even irrational reasons. Even if we concede atheism as the "rational" conclusion, this does not imply anything about the rationality of atheists as a group nor does it imply that atheists necessarily reject political or racist dogmatism. Nothing in the true definitions of atheism and atheist requires a person to "rationally" reject theism or any particular religion or desire "evidence in support of their core beliefs."

A person can be raised an atheist and thus simply accept what his parents have told him is true based on their authority. A person can reject theism because of negative feelings towards his parents and religious upbringing. I am not saying that these examples are true for all atheists, only that they show that the opposite is not true for all atheists. The capacities for reason and irrationality are not dependent upon one's atheism or theism.

Mr. Harris is right that the examples given do not prove anything negative about atheism and atheists in general. However, it is also true that the Inquisition (for one example) does not prove anything negative about theism and theists in general. What these examples do prove is that neither atheism nor theism is necessary or sufficient for cruelty and brutality. Given what we know of war and predation in nonhuman species, it is more likely that war and predation are tied to natural human capacities. This doesn't mean that humans will be violent in all circumstances, only that given particular circumstances, humans have the innate capacity to become violent. Justifications for that violence will take a multitude of forms due to the diversity of human cultures.

I'll end this part here. In part III, we'll see more of Mr. Harris disproving his assertions that atheists are "especially rational."

Recruiting Is So Much Fun!

2007-07-04T18:44:00.000-04:00

The Lesbian Shadow Government strikes again! I don't know why you straight people continue to resist the ultimate and inevitable dominion of your homosexual overlords. It is futile. The power of Ellen is strong within us!

UPDATE: I'll admit it. I check my sitemeter regularly even though I haven't been able to get it to become visible on the blog again. Anywho, someone googled "FBI role in advancing gay lifestyle" and got me.

Honey, it's not the FBI. Your homosexual overlords are more than able to carry out our own covert and overt propaganda campaigns without the help of the suits. Jay Edgar was just there to make sure the suits stayed off our backs while we put the grand plan in place. But don't worry. It won't hurt. Much.

Sci-Fi Nerd Call to Action!

2007-07-04T17:53:00.000-04:00

Calling all trekkies and other assorted science fiction nerds! They're knocking sci-fi over at ScienceBlogs. This cannot be permitted. Science fiction is the best of all possible generes. Science fiction brought us 7 of 9, Princess Leia, Deanna Troi, Jadzia Dax, Queen Amidala, The United Federation of Planets, the deathstar, light sabers, ewoks, Umox, phasers, Yoda... We'll forgive it for Jar Jar Binx. Science fiction also brought us many scientists and science journalists who fell in love with science via its (admittedly inaccurate at times) great stories, awesome adventures, cool toys and badass special effects.

If you love science fiction, go on over and give 'em what for at:

Galactic Interactions
Gene Expression
Adventures in Ethics and Science
The Voltage Gate

Feel free to follow the links they provide to other offenders.

Review: Letter to a Christian Nation, Part I

2007-07-04T10:17:00.000-04:00

As Mr. Harris makes so many logical and factual errors in Letter to a Christian Nation, I'm going to cover this book in parts. In part I, we'll see Mr. Harris appeal to ignorance and bigotry, get his history wrong, and display a willful ignorance despite the accessibility of Google.

"The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims." (p7)

Atheism has nothing to do with accepting "beliefs", only deities. This is a lovely cheap trick, but it does not follow from logic. Even if the audience can empathize with Mr. Harris via this example, it does not provide logical justification for their beliefs or his.

"Isn't it obvious that Muslims are fooling themselves? Isn't it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Koran is the perfect word of the creator of the universe has not read the book critically? Isn't it obvious that the doctrine of Islam represents a near-perfect barrier to honest inquiry?" (p7)

Is Mr. Harris' appeal to the perceived ignorance and bigotry of his audience reasonable? How can these facts be "obvious" to his supposed target audience since most have probably never read the Koran and therefore cannot determine the reasonableness of those who follow it? It is only "obvious" because it appeals to their narcissism and bigotry against Muslims. It is far from "obvious" that "Islam represents a near-perfect barrier to honest inquiry" considering that Muslims created the scientific method, amongst many other accomplishments based on "honest inquiry."

I'm not sure if the next example is an appeal to the audience's ignorance or an argument from Mr. Harris'. The Golden Rule did not originate with Jesus of Nazareth, on this Mr. Harris is correct. However, Mr. Harris forgets that the historic Yeshuah Bar Yehoseph was a Jew, a rabbi, and intimately familiar with probably the earliest known source of that rule, The Babylonian Talmud, which originates from the 13th Century BCE and thus predates his examples, "Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, [and] Epictetus."

My favorite part of the book so far is Harris' brief exposition of the Martin Luther King/Ghandi/Jainism connection (p12). MLK is inspired by Ghandi who is inspired by Jainism, so Jainism is "objectively" better than Christianity at producing someone like MLK. (We'll leave aside the fact that early Christians were pacifists for centuries.) Surely, Harris knows the difference between pacifism as a philosophy and the tactics of nonviolent protest? Surely, he understands that MLK would have been directly inspired by Ghandi in large part because Ghandi was a man of his own time who used these tacts successfully against a similar enemy and for a similar purpose? Does Harris even realize that Ghandi's hunger strikes and and other forms of civil disobedience were inspired not by the Jainists but by the use of these tactics by the Catholic Irish nationalists? I would also ask if Mr. Harris is familiar with the logical fallacy called "proof by example," but he obviously is.

"The moment a person realizes that slaves are human beings like himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness, he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and treat them like farm equipment. It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this epiphany--and yet, it had to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the Confederate South, among the most pious Christians this country has ever known." (pp18-19)

This epiphany came "remarkably easy" for the Quakers, who took their first stand against slavery in 1688. Unfortunately, it didn't come "remarkably easy" for Western scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries and those who depended on them for the creation of public policy and for determining the circumstances under which their moral decisions were made. Yes, slaveowners justified themselves with the Bible, but they also justified themselves with science.

Science, unlike the Bible, gave them specific justification to enslave the African race based on its supposed inferior characteristics, the "benefit" Africans received from slavery, and scientific assessments of the African's "inability" to rule himself. Furthermore, via the theories of scientific racism, science actually circumvented the white man's ability to perceive Africans as either "human beings like himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness" or as capable of that reason which grants humanity its meaning and value.

As for his interpretation of the Civil War and its relationship to the abolition of slavery, Mr. Harris is a bit too naive. First, Abraham Lincoln made it well known that his intent was only to preserve the union, a goal he was prepared to achieve either by abolishing slavery or preserving it. Secondly, slavery along with other forms of oppression were practiced in the Union as well. Third, I'd like to know what objective assessment Mr. Harris used to determine that Southerners were "among the most pious Christians this country has ever known." I have my suspicions that this is more complicated than Mr. Harris realizes for two reasons: 1.) Christianity was probably far less influential amongst the Southern elite and thus the majority of slaveowners than it was and is amongst the South's middle and lower classes. 2.) Thomas Jefferson (for one example) was a Southerner, a slaveowner, and a deist and although he opposed slavery in theory, he owned slaves until the day he died. (If we accept the Sally Hemmings story, Mr. Jefferson enslaved his own children.)

Mr. Harris' take on the Ten Commandments (pp21-23) is laughably inaccurate and, since a five minute google search or a bit of simple reasoning would have informed him of this, must reflect willful ignorance. I'll only briefly mention his reference to the commandments as "Judeo-Christian" despite the fact that they predate Christianity by more than a millenium and despite the fact that there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian. The term is a conceit that originated in 1899 as a way to describe the Christian emergence from Judaism and came to have its current meaning via World War II anti-Nazi propaganda.

My favorite of Mr. Harris' many inaccuracies is perhaps his characterization of the third commandment as having "nothing whatsoever to do with morality" and forbidding "utterances like 'G-d damn it!'" This may come as a surprise to those who are not theologically literate, but the commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the L-rd thy G-d in vain." has absolutely nothing to do with profanity and everything to do with honor and morality.

In the era that the Hebrew scriptures were written, all contracts and oaths were made "in the name of G-d." So this commandment forbade using the name of G-d for a vain, pointless, or insincere oath and by extension forbade vain, pointless, or insincere oaths of any kind. This practice continues somewhat to our own day and can be found in the courtroom. A violation of this oath, taken in the name of G-d, is called perjury, which is also covered under the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor." We could also extend this to those supposed Christian politicians who vow to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and who, upon violating their oaths or taking them insincerely, violate this commandment. I will assume that most people would consider keeping one's oaths an important part of morality and honor, not to mention a vital source of social stability.

"And what are we to make of the fact that, in bringing his treatise to a close, the creator of our universe could think of no human concerns more pressing and durable than the coveting of servants and livestock?"

And what are we to make of an author who, although intimately familiar with Buddhist philosophy and its prescriptions against desire, is unfamiliar with the application of this commandment to morality? Covetousness is forbidden due its relationship to the actions which we may take to obtain that which belongs to another. (In the Jewish interpretation, this commandment includes both the desire AND the act.) Adultery, theft, murder, kidnapping, bearing false witnesses, etc. are all linked to covetousness in many instances. In the Bible, David has Uriah sent to the front lines so that he'll be killed, making Bathsheba available for David. In history, accusations of witchcraft, heresy and other crimes were often used to obtain the property of the accused. History is also replete with examples of how the desire to seize power from another can lead to unspeakable horrors.

I will end part I here. In part II, we'll analyze Mr. Harris' "objective morality" and the blatant inconsistencies and not a little hypocrisy inherent in condemning the Christians for opposing stem-cell research while praising the Jainists.

Tax the Churches?

2007-07-02T12:56:00.000-04:00

There's an interesting movement to "tax the churches" by removing religious institutions' 501(c)3 status. Here's a few sites if you're interested:

Daylight Atheism
Tax the Churches
Gainesville Humanists
Tax Churches

I've explained the basics of 501(c)3 in a previous post, but there are some details left out.

Yes, churches are "automatically" tax-exempt once they incorporate as a church on the federal level; however, state and local departments of taxation often require even religious organizations to file for 501(c)3 status to be exempt from their taxes. Incorporating as a "church" implies nonprofit status.

Yes, religious organizations are not required to submit for auditing, but this distinction is meant to avoid government intrusion in religious matters per the 1st amendment. The government does not decide what constitutes a religious organization other than that it must be incorporated as such. This exemption also applies to any nonprofit that has less than a $25,000 net profit annually, which means most nonprofits.

Yes, many church leaders are quite wealthy. So are many museum directors. Anyone remember the recent Smithsonian controversy over pay and perks? This is not church-specific nor does it exclude the organization itself from nonprofit status.

Yes, churches are excluded from certain laws, like anti-discrimination statutes, as are many nonprofit ideological organizations.

Yes, churches are forbidden from "political" activity of a sort in keeping with their nonprofit status although they are allowed to talk about "issues". Some people see this as a problem. (I'll assume because of the issue-based activism of the religious right.) However, remember that this applies to all ideologically-based nonprofits, many of which are "issue" organizations.

I'd go on, but I can see you nodding off. The problem is this: How do we maintain separation of church and state if we revoke nonprofit status for religious organizations but permit it for other ideological organizations that operate in the same way? We would then be making a determination based on religion, a violation of the 1st amendment. (According to the Supreme Court, atheist organizations would count as religious organizations for purposes of the law. Do we tax them as religions?)

Of course, it might work constitutionally if we also taxed these organizations and/or forbid them to talk about political issues:

Atheist Alliance International, American Atheists, PFLAG, The Human Rights Campaign, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, NAACP, Alliance for Justice, Free Speech Coalition, PETA, The Ayn Rand Institute, The Nature Conservancy, Workplace Fairness, etc.

War! What Is It Good For?

2007-07-01T14:44:00.000-04:00

Three days ago, we marked the 38th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots and the beginning of the radical gay rights movement. For those who don't know, the Stonewall Riots began in response to a police raid on a gay bar called The Stonewall Inn in New York's Greenwich Village neighborhood. Police raids on gay establishments were very common then as was police harassment and entrapment of gay people. The Stonewall Riots and subsequent riots throughout the country mobilized gay resistance to widespread, systemic oppression and discrimination and transformed the gay movement from an underground, legalistic movement to one based on direct action.

Its role in actually changing the situation for gay people was, like the race riots of the Civil Rights movement, very limited. The riots alerted the gay community to the need to fight back and alerted the mainstream to the fact that gay people would no longer passively accept oppression. Its effectiveness in doing that is unquestionable.

Like the Civil Rights movement, however, the real progresss in the condition of gay people was born of nonviolent direct action. After the riots, the newly radicalized LGBT community used marches, political lobbying, petitions, and lawsuits to challenge discriminatory laws and to fight for laws that would protect the rights of gay people.

The centerpiece of this new movement, however, was visibility in the personal and public lives of gay people. Through "coming out," activists began to draw attention to the ordinariness and diversity of the LGBT community, which crossed all lines of gender, race, religion, class, occupation, education, etc. In addition to coming out in private and in public, the gay community pushed to change the representation of LGBT people in the mainstream media and to create positive images through gay-created media. Unfortunately, much of this visibility came about in part through the AIDS epidemic.

Our visibility and the challenge that poses to the stereotype of gay people as some amorphous "other" disconnected from humanity has radically transformed societal attitudes about sexual orientation and the nature of discrimination. However, there is a long road ahead as we face the resurgent right wing and its far too successful campaign to bar LGBT Americans from full equality before the law.

As I think about all that we've gained and how different my life is from the lives of those who came before me, I can't help celebrating just a little bit. As my friends and I love to say, "Butch Up!"

Framing: Not Just for Pictures

2007-07-01T11:00:00.000-04:00

I've been reading quite a bit about the "framing" wars amongst scientists trying to bolster public acceptance of evolution and atheists trying to eliminate stereotypes about them. There's a lot of confusion about what framing means. Since I've got that lovely B.A. in Communications sitting around gathering dust, I'll weigh in with my expert opinion. But to make things fun, I'll step away from the science/atheism/religion controversies and show you how framing can work for you.

Imagine a young gentleman trying to pay tribute to the young lady with whom he is in love or even merely in lust.

In situation A, he says, "Man, my bitch is FINE! She's got a smokin' ass and tits that'll put ya eyes out, Dawg!

In situation B, he says:

She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes:
Thus mellowed to that tender light
Which heaven to gaudy day denies.

One shade the more, one ray the less,
Had half impaired the nameless grace
Which waves in every raven tress,
Or softly lightens o'er her face;
Where thoughts serenely sweet express
How pure, how dear their dwelling-place.

And on that cheek, and o'er that brow,
So soft, so calm, yet eloquent,
The smiles that win, the tints that glow,
But tell of days in goodness spent,
A mind at peace with all below,
A heart whose love is innocent!

In both A and B, our love-struck young man is expressing that the object of his affection is very attractive. However, although A may seem flattering to a particular sort of young lady, I think you can understand how B is framed much better and is more likely to be successful in most situations.

Now, let's take a more serious scenario. A young woman is applying for a job after being unemployed for a year.

In situation A, she says, "Man, I just didn't feel like working. Hell, the only reason I'm applying for this crap job is because my parents won't pay for my shit anymore."

In situation B, she says, "After finishing school, I thought it best to take some time off to explore my options and decide what I really wanted to do with my life. I think I learned a lot about myself and gained perspective on what a career means to me. Now, I'm ready to commit myself to a full-time job at your company."

B is obviously better framing. A may get you a good position at McDonald's, but B will help you take the next step up to a cush job at the Gap.

Framing is not about what you say, but how you say it. It's about ensuring that your message gets across in a way that helps you achieve your goals. Bad framing is kind of like the static that interferes with television reception. It doesn't change the quality of the program but it does make you more likely to change the channel away from something you might have enjoyed otherwise.

501(c)3: It's Not Just for Churches Anymore

2007-07-01T09:13:00.000-04:00

I know how exciting you find the tax codes, so today, boys and girls, we're going to learn about 501(c)3 and its many applications. Most of you probably think of 501(c)3 as that part of the code that makes churches tax exempt and you'd be right, to an extent. But it's so much more than that. Here's a brief FAQ for 501(c)3:

"Oh, Great Tax G-ddess, what kinds of organizations are tax-exempt under 501(c)3?"

Well, minion, all sorts of organizations can get tax-exemption under this code. Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, schools, scouting organizations, fraternal organizations, think tanks, cultural institutions like museums and theaters, charities, religious associations like YMCA, historical societies, benevolent societies like the Shriners, hospitals and health clinics, and even public parks and playgrounds are tax-exempt as long as they are what we call non-profit.

But Great Tax G-ddess, what does non-profit mean?

Non-profit, little minion, means that the purpose of the organization is something other than making money.

For instance, McDonald's is a profitable business. The owners want to make money for their own use. They do this by trying to make sure that the money they spend on labor, supplies, advertising, taxes, etc. is less than the money they take in from people who want to fill their bodies with artery-clogging cholesterol molecules. Any money that's left over after they pay all of the bills goes into the owners' pockets.

A museum, on the other hand, is non-profit. Their purpose is to expose the public to works of great art or historical artifacts. They get their money from people who donate it, from the people who come to see the museum's exhibits, or from renting out art or artifacts that they're not using at the moment. Sometimes, they lose money or just break even. If they make money, it doesn't go to the owners, it goes to buying more art or artifacts for people to see when they come to the museum.

I understand that, Great Tax G-ddess, but aren't churches and religious organizations automatically tax-exempt?

No, a church or religious organization is only tax-exempt if it files for and receives tax-exempt status under 501(c)3 just like all of the other non-profits.

But, Great Tax G-ddess, what if the church has a profit-making business like a bookstore?

Tax-exemption only applies to the activities that are not for profit. So, if the church has a soup kitchen, it doesn't pay taxes on that, but the church would pay taxes on the bookstore.

So, if I donate money to a church, is it tax-deductible?

Yes. Any donation to a non-profit that has tax-exempt status under 501(c)3 is tax deductible. Whether it's a church or museum or zoo doesn't matter. Just remember, this only applies to donations. If you buy a book at that bookstore we talked about, you still pay sales tax and the money you spend is not tax deductible.

What about the First Amendment, Great Tax G-ddess?

You're a curious little minion, aren't you? 501(c)3 doesn't violate the First Amendment for a few reasons. 1.) The religious groups don't get tax-exemption because they're religious, only because they're non-profit. 2.)501(c)3 doesn't make a distinction between different religions. 3.) The religious organizations have equal status with the nonreligious or secular organizations.

Well, little minion, any more questions?

No. Thank you, Great Tax G-ddess!

That sums it all up, I think. But if any of you minions out there in the blogosphere have questions, the Great Tax G-ddess has answers.

Anti-Gay Discrimination by the Numbers

2007-06-30T16:30:00.000-04:00

40 Number of states that have Defense of Marriage Acts
11 Number of states that have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and/or any legal contracts for same-sex couples
41 Number of states that do not permit second-parent adoptions for gay couples
3 Number of states that have laws explicitly prohibiting gay individuals and couples from adopting and/or being foster parents
28 Number of states that do not regularly permit gay adoptions
19 Number of states that do not include sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation
15.5 Percentage of reported hate crimes that are commited against LGBT people
20 Percentage of gay people that have been victims of hate crimes
33 to 50 Percentage of anti-gay hate crimes that are reported
34 States that permit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation
44 States that permit discrimination in employment based on gender identity
38 States that permit discrimination in housing based on sexual orientation
726 Members of the military discharged for being gay in 2005 (Due to military decision to cut down on anti-gay discharges for duration of war, prewar numbers were substantially higher.)

Atheism and Civil Rights

2007-06-29T11:12:00.000-04:00

There’s an interesting discussion going on over at Science Blogs about whether atheism is a civil rights issue. (You can read some of the discussion at Framing Science, Pharyngula, Evolution Blog, and Pure Pedantry.)

My answer is yes and no. That seems self-contradictory, so I'd like to note the difference between a civil rights "issue" in the vague sense and a civil rights movement, which is more concrete. Discrimination of any kind is a violation of civil rights, regardless of whether the discrimination is perpetuated against a member of a minority or a majority. (Discrimination against caucasians is just as much a civil rights issue in that sense as discrimination against African-Americans.) Fighting discrimination is an admirable goal and one to which we should all be committed.

A civil rights movement, on the other hand, is a completely different subject. Civil rights movements are aimed at removing legal impediments to equal rights, including laws that actively promote the violation of civil rights and laws that deny protection of a particular group's civil rights. Civil rights movements are also concerned with ensuring that the law acknowledges the civil rights of a particular group. For African-Americans, women, gays, etc., inequality was/is codified, legal, and enforced by the government.

Under existing local, state, and federal laws as well as standing Supreme Court precedent, discrimination based on religion is a crime. These laws are enforced by the government both to protect religious minorities and to protect the nonreligious minority. Attacking someone based on religion or lack thereof is characterized as a special type of crime, hate crime or "bias-motivated" crime. Hate crimes against atheists are prosecuted under these laws.

Laws and practices which violate the separation of church and state do not specifically target atheists but instead affect all religious minorities and those in the religious majority who oppose them. As these issues are not atheist-specific, the atheist movement does not fall under the definition of a civil rights movement.

Under the majority of existing local, state, and federal laws, discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is legal. In most parts of the country, there is no recourse to the law for those who are denied employment, housing, education, health care, etc. based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In most parts of the country, hate crimes laws do not protect those who are attacked for being gay or transgender. Then, we have to consider the laws that specifically prevent gay people from giving blood, marrying, adopting children, retaining custody of their non-biological children after the death of their partner, retaining visitation rights to their non-biological children after a separation, sponsoring their foreign-born domestic partners for a visa, etc. These laws are gay-specific and do not apply to other groups.

Under existing law, gay people are a separate, unprotected class specifically denied equal protection by force of law. The same can be said of women and racial/ethnic minorities in the recent past. This cannot be said of atheists today. Atheism is therefore not a civil rights issue in the sense of requiring a civil rights movement to ensure the legal acknowledgement and protection of atheists' civil rights.

UPDATE:

From Volokh In 2001, for instance, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld an order giving a mother custody partly because she took the child to church more often than the father did, thus providing a better "future religious example."

From Nolo: In MacLagan v. Klein, 123 N.C. App. 557, 473 S.E. 2d 778 (1996), a North Carolina court ruled that, since a young girl had identified as Jewish since age three, exposure to the Methodist religion might interfere with her Jewish identity and adversely affect her emotional well-being. Based on its concern that the girl might suffer harm in the future, the court gave the Jewish father sole control over the child's religious education.

Also from Volokh: Likewise, through the past decades, parents have had their rights limited or denied partly based on their racist views, advocacy of Communism, Nazi sympathies, advocacy of pacifism and disrespect for the flag, advocacy of polygamy, defense of the propriety of homosexuality, defense of adultery, advocacy of (or inadequate condemnation of) nonmarital sex, fundamentalism, teaching of religions that make it hard for children to “fit in the western way of life in this society” or that are “non-mainstream,” and teaching of religious intolerance.

In his full paper "Parent-Child Speech and Child Custody Speech Restrictions", Eugene Volokh cites the following cases:

"Collier v. Collier, 14 Phila. 129, 144, 149 (Pa. Ct. Common Pleas 1985) (giving father only weekend custody, partly because of his fundamentalist lifestyle and attitudes- such as “disapprov[al] of most popular music as ‘satanic’”-which were seen as likely to lead to “serious problems for the children in adolescence”)"
Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, Jones v. Jones, No. 49D01-0305-DR-00898, at 4 (Feb. 13, 2004), available at http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody/jones.pdf (directing parents “to take such steps as are needed to shelter [the child] from involvement and observation of these non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals”) rev’d, 832 N.E.2d 1057,1061 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)" This case was also in reference to fundamentalist religious beliefs.
Mendez v. Mendez, 527 So. 2d 820, 821, 823 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (Baskin, J., dissenting) (taking view that lower court’s denial of custody to Jehovah’s Witness was based on expert evidence that being raised as Jehovah’s Witness would make it hard for children to “fit in the western way of life in this society”)

Melinda here: It is my opinion, considering this evidence, that religious considerations in child custody are not restricted to atheism and are thus not specifically an atheist rights issue. They are, in my opinion, an unconscionable violation of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

American Atheists has an interesting explanation of how the Supreme Court and federal courts have extended the legal definition of "religion" to include atheism, secular humanism, etc. and have applied freedom of religion to them as well.

Rieux, in the comments, cites a recent Supreme Court decision as being "against atheist," however, this is a highly questionable interpretation. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation was that the atheist group that initiated the challenge to Bush's faith-based office did not have legal standing.

From The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life:

"It has long been established ... that the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the federal government," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"If every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus," Alito wrote.

This decision to deny standing was not based on the fact that the group was an atheist group, only on the fact that they were taxpayers, who cannot challenge federal decisions based solely on their role as taxpayers.

This decision becomes even less an atheist issue when one considers the groups that filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the Freedom from Religion Foundation:
American Civil Liberties Union
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
People for the American Way Foundation
Anti-Defamation League
Center for Inquiry
American Jewish Congress
American Atheists
Center for Secular Humanism

Of these organizations, two are Jewish, one is Christian, three are neutral and only four (including FFRF) are atheist. Yes, atheists are discriminated against for their beliefs, but so are Wiccans, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, fundamentalists (in some areas), etc. Trying to make the separation of church and state and religious freedom "atheist" issues is an insult to the tens of millions of American citizens of all religions and none who fight to protect our way of life from the encroachments of the the current government.

UPDATE 2: Thanks to an anonymous comment and a little googling, I discovered that the "Center for Inquiry" was incorrectly listed as the "Center for Free Inquiry" on the Freedom from Religion Foundations's website and thus, on this blog. I also discovered that the Center for Secular Humanism filed jointly with the Center for Inquiry. I corrected the link for CFI, added a link for CSH, and updated the numbers in the final paragraph. However, we still have only 4 atheist organizations out of the 10 involved. So, my point stands.

The Man Behind the Curtain

2007-06-28T13:20:00.001-04:00

My reading schedule for the last year or so has been confined to replicating and updating the two years of research I lost due to Katrina. So, I've missed out on some of the "major" works outside the reach of the book I'm writing, which is on the intersections between science and political, cultural, and social debates. So interesting you could die, right? Anyway, I finally decided to pick up some of the works I've missed, like Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation.

I've read much of Sam Harris' other work, including his column at Huffington post, and various interviews. My impression has generally been that he's an extremist, not because he's opposed to religion but in how he's opposed to it. In other words, the fact that he would say something like this, "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." That should speak for itself.

Anyway, as I'm just starting Letter to a Christian Nation, I won't do a full review here yet. However, I have to admit I broke into uproarious laughter after the first 50 pages or so. Why? The man behind the curtain, pretending to be the great wizard of atheism, is a moron. In just the first 50 pages, there are so many factual and logical errors and Harris misses the point of so many simple concepts that I can only assume he has some kind of mental deficiency. Perhaps, the rest of the book will change my mind, but so far I am amazed at his ability to gain entrance into the world of the "public intellectual."

Why was this so funny? After all, the worsening anemia of public discourse has disastrous implications. It's funny, because this popped into my head: "Don't hate the player. Hate the game." So, I have a bizarre sense of humor. Sue me.

History of Science

2007-06-24T12:00:00.000-04:00

Wikipedia has a good entry on the history of science. A quick read through demonstrates why Lewis Wolpert's concentration on the Greeks as the progenitors of science is a bit too Eurocentric. Consider the scientists of the Muslim world, whom Wolpert cursorily dismisses as possibly having some contribution to science:

While emphasizing the contribution of Chistian society to science, the contributions of Islam must also be recognized. Islamic scholars also continued the Greek tradition, and it may not be irrelevant that Islam offers a unifying perspective of knowledge and considers the pursuit of knowledge to be a virtue. It could of course, not have been Christianity alone that was responsible for the flowering of science in the West in the sixteeth century. (Wolpert, The Unnatural Nature of Science, p. 51)

Muslim scientists placed far greater emphasis on experiment than had the Greeks. This led to the modern scientific method being developed in the Muslim world, where significant progress in methodology was made, beginning with the experiments of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) on optics from circa 1000, in his Book of Optics.[2] The most important development of the scientific method was the use of experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation, which began among Muslim scientists. Ibn al-Haytham is also regarded as the "father of optics", especially for his empirical proof of the intromission theory of light. Some have also described Ibn al-Haytham as the "first scientist" for his development of the modern scientific method.[22] (Wikipedia)

Wolpert focused solely on the Muslims' continuance of Greek tradition, but it is only the Muslims' break with Greek tradition (in introducing repeatable experiments and a concrete methodology)that made science as we know it possible. In adddition, we must ask, "Where would science be without the Arab inventions of algorithms, algebra, decimal point notation and chemistry?" Considering the role of Muslims in introducing 12th century Europe to modern science and the preserved works of the Greeks as well as their substantial lead in formulating heliocentric models of the universe, we can only assume that (Wolpert's theories aside) Islam's role in the Scientific Revolution of the 16th century was far greater than that of Christianity.

Remember, the heliocentric model of Copernicus gave birth to the Scientific Revolution. Can we assume that he was not influenced by earlier models proposed by Muslim astronomers, whose works were a vital part of Europe's scientific canon? I don't think so.

Review: The Unnatural Nature of Science

2007-06-23T13:29:00.000-04:00

In The Unnatural Nature of Science, Lewis Wolpert purports to explain (according to the book jacket) "the fundamental difference between science and technology, and between artistic and scientific creativity...why psychoanalysis is not properly scientific, why computers cannot do science, why science and religion are incompatible, and why philosphy and sociology have told us little about the true nature of science." Unfortunately, he does none of these things very well and, in fact, doesn't do some of them at all.

First, the language and organization are atrocious. Wolpert seems intent on breaking all of the rules of good communication and good argument. He never uses a simple word when a complex one will do, rarely defines his terms (For example, he will argue that one theory provides a more satisfactory explanation than another but never defines what makes an explanation satisfactory.), will contradict himself from one sentence to the next, and jumps from one topic to the next and back again with no apparent rhyme or reason.

Consider this passage: Aristotle asked whether all the parts of the embryo come into existence together, or are they formed in succession, like the knitting of a net? He thus defined the preformation/epigenesis debate which was to continue for 2,000 years. Having opened chickens' eggs at different times, he argued in favor of the knitting analogy and thus for epigenesis - that is, the gradual generation of embryonic structures. But his rejection of preformation - that everything was preformed in miniature from the beginning - was based on philosophical arguments, not on observation.

We'll ignore the fact that that first sentence should have ended with a period. Wolpert shows how Aristotle used observation to come to the idea of epigenesis, but claims that he rejected the opposite, preformation, based on philosophical arguments (none of which Wolpert ever explores or even mentions). Since a thing can't be A and not A at the same time, wouldn't observational evidence for A be observational evidence against not A?

Strangely, Wolpert calls Aristotle's conclusions an "inspired guess" that was "correct for the wrong reasons," an argument that seems to be based on Aristotle's inability to provide a mechanism for epigenesis, an argument that he also applies to future scientists in their attempts to solve the epigenesis/preformation debate. Wolpert applies this standard inconsistently as he does not similarly condemn Newton's theory of gravitation for its lack of a mechanism to explain gravity nor Darwin's original theory of evolution for its lack of mechanisms to explain mutations and inheritance. In fact, he praises them for trudging on despite these limitations.

But let's get back to the points of the book. Although I must admit ignorance on the fine distinctions between science and technology, I'd like to make a few brief comments. First, I am confused by the insistence on declaring applied science to be not science. Secondly, I have a distinct problem with Wolpert's appeal to the Ancient Greeks' rejection of "applied science" since this rejection was based not on reason but on gender and class distinctions. Productive labor of any sort was deemed beneath men of a certain class and was relegated to women, servants, peasants and slaves. Third, Wolpert downplays the contributions of non-European societies to the birth of science and ignores the fact that much of the success of Greek society came from its importation of ideas from other cultures. Much of Greek art, architecture, philosophy and even religion was imported from Egypt, India, Babylon, etc. (all societies Wolpert insists are irrelevant to the development of science). In tone and content, Wolpert's arguments come off as Eurocentric and even anti-semitic. (Wolpert's only reference to Jews is to argue that the Greeks "unlike the Jews" were not "constrained" in their thinking by dogma.)

Wolpert's arguments on the differences between artistic creativity and science are, unfortunately, based on unquestioned stereotypes and willful ignorance of how the arts and artists actually function. I checked the book's references and not a single one seems to have anything to do with the practices of the artistic community.

Perhaps that is why he makes foolish statements like:

Compare all this with the arts: for painters, novelists and poets, the original creation is all important. The artist does not contribute to a common enterprise; the artist's work is not assimilated into a larger body and its essence is its individuality.

AND

For all these reasons, the strategy that scientists adopt in relation to their work and their colleagues is very different from that of artists. Artists are not subject to the criteria of validation and falsification that are central to the social activity of scientists. Artists may plagiarize, but they cannot falsify in the same sense as scientists can: they cannot cheat.

Wolpert also argues that the career goals of the artist are fame and wealth whereas the goals of the scientist are merely the esteem of peers, a few awards, funding for their work and some small economic reward for themselves. Add to that his implications that artistic creativity comes "out of the blue" while scientific creativity is based on years of study.

Obviously, Wolpert is completely ignorant of the arts. There's a reason why "starving artist" is a cliche while "starving scientist" is not. Most artists will die unknown and broke, including artists who, like Rembrandt, achieve eternal fame after their deaths. Most artists study theory and technique for many years before "discovering" new forms or making any substantial contribution to the arts. Most artists spend their lives vying for peer validation, good reviews, awards, funding, and the recognition that they have made a substantial contribution to some artistic movement or other. Many will cheat, misrepresenting themselvs and their work to get rewards. (I'm reminded of one thirty-something-year-old screenwriter who posed as a teenager, which gained her acclaim for the sophistication of her work until her true age was discovered.) Collaboration, discovery, hard work, social commitment, the willingness to work in obscurity etc. are vital to the arts no less than they are vital to science.

If only Wolpert had stopped at misrepresenting the arts. Instead, he decides to add to his intellectual dishonesty by constructing a straw man of the social sciences. Wolpert states that he is going to explore how the social sciences can at best be described as "primitive" sciences by carefully examining a single example. What example does he choose? Psychoanalytic theory. I don't think I need to explain why psychoanalytic theory is not an adequate representation of the social sciences, which include history, economics, anthropology, information science, law, linguistics, psychology and sociology.

In all, it seems that Wolpert began his project not with questions but with "answers." He does not ask if science is truly unique and deserving of privileged status, but asserts it and then cherry picks his "evidence" to support his argument. He therefore gave little consideration to the valid similarities that can be drawn between science and other human enterprises, often arguing on flimsy or nonexistent evidence that criticisms of science's supposed uniqueness should be ignored or that they are irrelevant to science.

Perhaps it is a cheap shot, but Wolpert's arguments remind me of those that argue that religion can only be understood by a "true believer", that it should be uniquely exempt from external criticisms, and that any negative applications of religion should be blamed solely on those who carry out the acts while all of the positive applications are proof of religon's inherently good nature. These arguments carry the whiff of hypocrisy when one considers that Wolpert, like most scientists, condemns those who apply them to religon.

Liberals in Exile is PG-rated

2007-06-23T11:27:00.000-04:00

Mingle² - Online Dating

I guess they didn't notice the word f*cking! Who knew I was slipping it past the censors?

Science and Journalism

2007-06-21T12:21:00.000-04:00

There's quite the big hullabaloo going on amongst science bloggers as to the usefulness of journalistic types, our ability to convey science accurately, and whether we should all just be given the proverbial finger. Evolving Thoughts and A Blog Around the Clock have posts that come really close to the source of the problem. (A Blog Around the Clock also has a great list of links to other science blogs covering the topic.) As a journalist who writes about science, I'd like to weigh in on this.

First, as Coturnix of ABAC notes, "to educate" and "to inform" are two very different things. In general, we journalists consider it our duty to inform the public not to educate them. What's the difference?

Teachers educate. They mold the knowledge, opinions, and critical thinking skills of their students. They give them guidance not only on what to think but how to think, providing them with the skills to acquire and apply information. With the exception of pundits, columnists and analysts, journalists merely present information, ideally with no hint as to how this information "should" be interpreted.

Unfortunately, our imperfect attempts at "just the facts" objectivity and balance can create a skewed view of the world. They often lead to an episodic form of reporting that strips information away from its context, simplifies complex realities into false dichotomies (giving two sides to stories that might have 5 different sides or even more), and treats vastly unequal propositions as if they were equal (balance is good for covering the subjective realms but often bad for imparting objective fact).

This tendency is exacerbated by the fact that mainstream journalists are expected to write with a relatively uneducated populace in mind, expecting that the average reader will have no more than a high school education. Yet, on the other hand, we sometimes write about topics that can only be fully understood and contextualized by someone with a strong educational background, topics like science. Catch 22? Rock and a hard place? You decide.

Adding an additional level of difficulty, we have the dreaded deadline and all the other practical considerations that affect how we cover a particular story. Depending on the nature of the medium (newspaper, magazine, TV, radio) and the specific outlet, journalists may have as little as a few hours to as much as a year to work on a single story. They may be fully responsible for background research, interviewing and writing or they may work with a team. They may have to fit all of the information they've gathered into 200 words or 1,500 or 5,000 (10 seconds or 10 minutes or two hours in TV and radio).

Next, my scientist friends must consider that not all journalists who write about science are science journalists. The person who calls for an interview may be a general assignment reporter, a reporter who normally focuses on another topic, a reporter who is merely interested in science, a reporter with a science degree, a graduate of an actual science journalism program, etc. (Science journalism programs are relatively new and will hopefully improve science coverage as graduates of these programs go on to be reporters, writers and editors.)

Unfortunately, editors don't or sometimes can't ensure that every reporter has a background in the topics they'll cover or that they themselves are "right" for editing material on particular topics. Unless an outlet is big enough to have "specialists" on staff, any old journalist will have to do for covering whatever comes up. Few reporters will risk their careers by refusing assignments, an act that could get one quickly removed from the staff or freelance pool.

In the complex relationship between journalist and editor, you often have a situation where one knows science and the other doesn't, but the editor will always call the shots. Amongst the editor's many concerns (like length, impact, proximity, organization, etc.), accuracy of content may get lost, especially when the editor is dealing with an unfamiliar topic. Few editors have the option of passing a story on an unfamiliar topic to someone else.

Ultimately, despite our best efforts and sometimes because of them, "the best available version of the truth" is an elusive prey. So, what can scientists do about it if they want to see more and better science coverage? Here's my advice in as brief a format as possible.

*Familiarize yourself with the reporter who'll be interviewing you. Make sure you ask questions about the reporter's background, the publication or outlet, the length of the story, the deadline, etc.
*Tailor your answers accordingly. Cover the major points for a brief story in a local paper. Get more detailed for a longer piece for a major magazine. Provide simple explanations for a mainstream publication or a journalist with a limited science background. Provide more complex explanations for a science publication or a journalist with a science background.
*Provide framing. If it comes between quoting a really good metaphor or analogy that you provided or trying to make one up themselves, most journalists will use yours. This will avoid the "simplification problem" that often leads to inaccurate or inappropriate explanations.
*Provide context. Why is it important? How much weight should this new information have? How does it fit with general knowledge about science or the current theories in the field?
*Provide alternate sources. Is there background information available for the reporter to consider so that they can get a fuller picture of the information you're providing? Is there someone in your field whom you think expresses this much better than you can?
*Where possible, develop a relationship with the science editor (or whichever editor generally gets assigned science stories) at the publications that request interviews with you most frequently.
*Make sure to provide feedback on science coverage without insulting journalists' professional sensibilities. Accusing most mainstream journalists or editors of overt bias will shut them down. Assume that it was unintentional and give them advice that may help them avoid the problem in the future.
*Give us a break once in a while. If you expect perfection from journalists, you'll be disappointed, just as we would be if we expected perfection from scientists.

UPDATE: I just got a chance to skim a few more of the posts on this topic and came across the argument that we should just let the scientists write the articles, working with an editor. With all due respect, most but not all scientists would be completely out of their league preparing an article (or video) on deadline for a mainstream publication with a specific word (or time) limit. Even the best editor has to have a reasonably well-written first draft. At minimum, an editor needs a writer familiar with proper style, organization, sourcing, interviewing techniques, etc.

I've been an editor and I can't imagine what it would be like having to educate someone in the requirements of journalism and the art of communication while also trying to get a finished product ready for publication on deadline. To be honest, I really wouldn't have time to hide the bodies of the pseudo-journalists who would die slow and painful deaths if they turned in some of the stuff I've seen from "amateurs" and actually expected me to publish it.

I have to admit that this is one of my pet peeves. The "anyone can do it" attitude many people have towards journalism and writing in particular is offensive to say the least. If anyone could do it, I could have skipped the six years of college and grad school and all the courses in media law, media history, communications theory, news reporting, newspaper writing, magazine writing, feature writing, cultural reporting, editing, etc. (not to mention the years of experience and decade or so of honing my craft).

If you think anyone could do it, I advise you to spend more time in the blogosphere reading the drivel turned out by most self-styled citizen journalists. Or try understanding most of the material written by scientists or historians or lawyers or accountants or economists. (I personally love science and read many science publications and blogs, but I'm also fully aware that I understand much of what I read because I have a strong science background not because the material is written in an approachable style.)

New York Mag Flubs It

2007-06-20T11:25:00.000-04:00

Okay, so I watched America's Got Talent last night. I was bored. Despite talking on the phone, eating dinner, etc. during the show, I still know that the lovely drag queen in this New York Magazine photo is NOT Boy Shakira. Tsk Tsk Tsk.

Updated: I've sent a comment to the magazine about it. Let's see if they actually correct themselves.