Month: January 2012

The New Segregation

Stephanie Zvan7 Comments

For this Martin Luther King Day in the year of another round of national elections, take a few minutes to read this Democracy Now! interview on what “tough on crime” really means:

AMY GOODMAN: On this eve of Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday, a federal holiday—the last two states to acknowledge it were New Hampshire and Arizona—we are having a discussion about the state of Black America. Michelle Alexander has written extensively about the mass incarceration in the age of color blindness, and we want to talk about what that means in terms of voting. People died for the right to vote in the United States. And yet, today, what happens to people who are imprisoned? Just a figure: Human Rights Watch says African-American adults have been arrested at a rate of 2.8 to 5.5 times higher than white adults in every year from 1980 to 2007, yet African Americans and whites have similar rates of illicit drug use and dealing. And then how that plays out right to deciding who will vote for these laws?

MICHELLE ALEXANDER: Well, absolutely. You know, felon disenfranchisement laws have now accomplished what poll taxes and literacy tests, you know, ultimately could not. People in the United States are stripped of the right to vote in many states if they have a felony conviction, including a minor drug conviction can, you know, wind up labeling you as a felon for life. And when people are released from prison, they can be stripped of the right to vote for a period of years, or in, you know, a few states, for the rest of your life.

And I find that many people kind of shrug their shoulders at that when I, you know, remark on the fact that so many people are denied the right to vote because of criminal convictions. But in other Western democracies, people who are in prison have the right to vote. But here, we deny the right to vote not only if you’re in prison, but once you’re released.

We are not even close to done with this fight. King is gone, but he never fought alone anyway. Today would be a good day to ask your representatives at both the state and national level what they intend to do about this.

The New Segregation
{advertisement}

Atheists in Love

Stephanie Zvan19 Comments

For some reason, posting about DuWayne made me remember this. He and Juniper are still making me smile. Originally posted here in a slightly modified form.

A couple of months ago, I was at brunch after the radio show. PZ and Mary Myers were in town on one of their many airport trips and joined us for the meal. Mary and I were having a fun chat about, among other things, her first few dates with PZ. (I’d be more specific, because there’s a great story there, but it isn’t mine to tell.)

Then someone new joined us and wanted Mary’s attention. I turned back to the conversation between PZ and the very earnest young man sitting across from me. He had come to atheism relatively recently and with great relief, and he wanted to give something back. He was shy, though, and diffident, and didn’t know what he could do to help. He asked PZ.

Now, I’m not a big talker. It takes some wind up for me to get to the point of even opening my mouth. However, this time, I interrupted before PZ could answer.

Continue reading “Atheists in Love” →

Atheists in Love

The Scale of Moral Relativism

Stephanie Zvan8 Comments

The idea of their being a magazine dedicated to the subject of moral relativism makes me a bit uncomfortable. The concept is used to excuse so many atrocities. But as I frequently point out on other topics, that doesn’t mean that the idea itself is wrong.

DuWayne Brayton, writing in the aptly titled Moral Relativism Magazine, has gone a long way toward convincing me that this is a topic we need to address better. Continue reading “The Scale of Moral Relativism” →

The Scale of Moral Relativism

Reporting Science: Accuracy, Partiality, and Advocacy

Stephanie Zvan5 Comments

This post is one of several intended to provide some starting points for the session John Timmer and I are moderating at Science Online 2012, “You Got Your Politics in My Science.” The general topic has to do with when scientific findings call out for advocacy, and when advocacy is appropriate in the reporting of science. Feel free to join the conversation even if you’re not part of Science Online. This is an unconference that works to see as many viewpoints expressed on its topics as possible.

The basic point behind reporting is to add to the readers’ body of knowledge as accurately as possible. Impartiality or lack of bias is considered a key aspect of this accurate conveyance, but we know that impartiality is a tricky subject. Not only do all humans come with a stack of biases, but there aren’t any simple mechanisms for overcoming bias.

Attempts to simplify the elimination of bias in reporting have led to “both sides” or “he said, she said” reporting, which is mostly good for informing the reader or viewer that there is a dispute. It doesn’t add much to a body of knowledge beyond that, in part, because it fails to fit information into its context, instead leaving the work up to a consumer who may or may not be qualified to do it.

Continue reading “Reporting Science: Accuracy, Partiality, and Advocacy” →

Reporting Science: Accuracy, Partiality, and Advocacy

Saturday Storytime: Native Intelligence

Stephanie Zvan5 Comments

I’ve always enjoyed Keith Laumer’s Retief stories, although rereading them in the knowledge of their historical context is often painful. Laumer probably wouldn’t have been written this particular story as a response to today’s political climate, but I find much more fun reading it as though it Laumer had heard of the Tea Party.

“Where does the big leader keep himself?”

“I dunno. I guess he’s pretty busy right now.” Jake snickered. “Some of them guys call themselves colonels turned out not to know nothing about how to shoot off the guns.”

“Shooting, eh? I thought it was a sort of peaceful revolution; the managerial class were booted out, and that was that.”

“I don’t know nothing,” Jake snapped. “How come you keep trying to get me to say stuff I ain’t supposed to talk about? You want to get me in trouble?”

“Oh, you’re already in trouble, Jake. But if you stick with me, I’ll try to get you out of it. Where exactly did the refugees head for? How did they leave? Must have been a lot of them; I’d say in a city of this size they’d run into the thousands.”

“I don’t know.”

“Of course, it depends on your definition of a big shot. Who’s included in that category, Jake?”

“You know, the slick-talking ones; the fancy dressers; the guys that walk around and tell other guys what to do. We do all the work and they get all the big pay.”

“I suppose that would cover scientists, professional men, executives, technicians of all sorts, engineers, teachers—all that crowd of no-goods.”

“Yeah, them are the ones.”

“And once you got them out of the way, the regular fellows would have a chance; chaps that don’t spend all their time taking baths and reading books and using big words; good Joes that don’t mind picking their noses in public.”

“We got as much right as anybody—”

Keep reading.

Saturday Storytime: Native Intelligence

Views and Comments

Stephanie Zvan14 Comments

Work is doing its best to take up all my intellectual capacity, energy, and time at the moment. In lieu of a post of substance this morning, I bring you more on the question of controversy and pageviews. Greg offered his take on the question of comments versus pageviews here. I got curious about my own, so being the data-driven person I am, I charted them.

I started with my 15 top-trafficked posts since moving to Freethought Blogs. Then I added my 15 top-commented posts here, so I was getting the high range of both. The overlap was only six posts, which should tell you something right there. Here is what the relationship looks like. Continue reading “Views and Comments” →

Views and Comments

Things to Do Today

Stephanie Zvan2 Comments

If you like bad movies, you should download (legally!) a copy of Laser Mission and join us tonight at 9 p.m. EST on Twitter for Mock the Movie. Details on how Mock the Movie works here. All you need to know about the movie is that they claim to have a system for making nuclear weapons–with lasers. There’s a trailer, of sorts. This looks horrid.

While that’s downloading, if you still have some bandwidth left, you should check out Words Such as Burn, a band that is donating part of the proceeds from the sale of their humanist album to the Secular Student Alliance. They’re guitar-based rock, but their sound varies quite a bit from song to song. Check out the samples and see what you think.

Want something to read instead? If you haven’t already seen it, check out the Skeptical Blog Anthology put together by the Young Australian Skeptics. Available as an ebook or in paperback.

If you’re looking for a stranger way to spend your money, consider paying for Michaelyn’s haircut. All right, what you’re really paying for is the ability to bring a big atheist event with great speakers to people who can’t afford conference fees. However, if you donate to help cover the costs of Reasonfest, Michaelyn will be sporting a red mohawk, and that is going to look great on her.

Or you could be a little more confrontational and help the Minnesota Atheists put up a billboard that will be seen by plenty of people who would prefer to forget atheists exist. You can see a preliminary version of the ad now, but imagine one of those pro-life, cute kid billboards that simply says, “Please don’t indoctrinate me with religion. Teach me to think for myself.” Come on. You know you want to donate for that.

All right. That’s enough for one morning, I think. Good job, everyone. Now hit the showers.

Things to Do Today

The Advocacy of Scientists

Stephanie Zvan4 Comments

This post is one of several intended to provide some starting points for the session John Timmer and I are moderating at Science Online 2012, “You Got Your Politics in My Science.” The general topic has to do with when scientific findings call out for advocacy, and when advocacy is appropriate in the reporting of science. Feel free to join the conversation even if you’re not part of Science Online. This is an unconference that works to see as many viewpoints expressed on its topics as possible.

We are generally wary of mixing our politics with our science, and that is probably a good thing. One of the points of the scientific process, as imperfect as it is, is to reduce the impact of our biases on the production of human knowledge. Political beliefs are, of course, a major source of potential bias. But what happens when a scientist’s findings call for political action?

It’s hardly unheard of for scientists to get involved in political action as a result of their research. Continue reading “The Advocacy of Scientists” →

The Advocacy of Scientists

Atheists Talk: Melody Hensley on the Women in Secularism Conference

Stephanie Zvan, 23 Comments

I usually post these on Fridays, but this Sunday, I’m doing the interview rather than just hosting. That means you get to participate more than usual. If you have questions you’d like asked during the show, leave a comment. I can’t promise we’ll get them all in, but we’ll do what we can.

2011 was an interesting year for women in the secularism movement. We were more visible than we’ve ever been, both in the U.S. and across the world. At the same time, a simple request to respect women’s wishes with regard to being hit on at atheist events provoked months of discussion, both positive and very, very negative.

In the middle of all of this, the Center for Inquiry announced that they would be hosting the first Women in Secularism conference May 18-20 of this year in Washington, DC. The list of speakers is diverse and highly accomplished. The reaction to the announcement was…varied.

This conference is the brainchild of the Executive Director of the DC branch of the Center for Inquiry, Melody Hensley. Join us this Sunday as we discuss with Melody the impetus for the conference, the contributions of women to the secularism movement, and what attendees can expect from the conference.

Related Links:

Listen to AM 950 KTNF this Sunday at 9 a.m. Central to hear Atheists Talk, produced by Minnesota Atheists. Stream live online. Call in to the studio at 952-946-6205, or send an e-mail to [email protected] during the live show. If you miss the live show, listen to the podcast later.

Atheists Talk: Melody Hensley on the Women in Secularism Conference

Please Make Up Your Mind

Stephanie Zvan59 Comments

Am I:

  1. A delicate flower, in need of protection from any hint of flirtatious behavior from any male in the skeptical and atheist movements, because I insist I’m here to get some work done; or
  2. A raging force of destruction whose criticisms have the power to destroy reputations and halt forward progress on “serious issues”?

Additionally, am I:

  1. A lousy “freethinker” because nothing I say is actually the result of a process of thought, being instead merely behavior conforming to a group; or
  2. A schemer who concocts elaborate stories outs of bits and pieces of the meaningless behavior of other in order to create controversy where none existed and drum up page views?

I mean, I’m happy to consider feedback, but y’all are gonna have to pick and choose here. How else am I supposed to know how to be maximally pleasant for all concerned?

Please Make Up Your Mind