I have a feeling this story is going to take off – not because someone said something homophobic (no news there, unfortunately) – but because it’s generating good discussion about free speech. There’s an article over at the Journal & Courier, Lafayette’s local newspaper, and the IndyStar, a newspaper in Indianapolis. They use a quote from my original post in their article, woo.
If anything, go to check out the comments from the Hoosiers…kind of frightening.
You’ll remember that a little over a week ago I talked about a Bert Chapman, a Purdue Professor who blamed homosexuals spreading AIDS for our bad economy, amongst other ignorant and hateful drivel. There have been a lot of developments at Purdue since then, but sadly I’ve been a bit behind in the coverage because I’ve been busy (you know, classes, grad school, PZ Myers coming – those minor things). Here’s a quick run down of what’s been going on:
1. Lots of letters have been written about the incident to our local student newspaper, the Exponent. The first wave of letters called Chapman out, the next wave said we were trying to censor him, and the third wave demonstrated how little people understand sarcasm, and the most recent letter from many Purdue librarians (not Chapman) note they support equal rights. The Exponent itself also weighed in, and I pretty much agree with them (free speech is free speech, we can criticize him all we want, but we shouldn’t be calling for him to be fired).
2. Today there was a protest in the Stewart Center, outside the library where Chapman works. I was unable to stop by because I had class all day, but another Purdue student wrote a good review of what happened.
3. A reporter from the IndyStar newspaper emailed me, saying he read my blog post on the matter (woo!) and wanted to interview me. I said sure, and did a little phone interview about the whole incident. Of course right after I hung up, I thought of all the things I wanted to say – oh well! If it gets covered, I’ll let all of you know.
Whenever I find an article that somehow combines my love for biology with my odd obsession with sex, I feel compelled to share it with all of you (aren’t you lucky?). Apparently researchers have grown replacement erectile tissue for rabbits using their own smooth muscle and endothelial cells. And this all wasn’t just for show, either:
Functional testing of the implanted tissue showed that vessel pressure within the erectile tissue was normal, that blood flowed smoothly through it, that the response to nitric oxide-induced relaxation was normal as early as one month after implantation, and that veins drained normally after erection.
Rabbits screwing like rabbits – a success!
Random thoughts:
Does this mean they removed the erectile tissue from the original rabbits? Poor bunny – but it was in the name of science!
How long until humans utilize this for people with severe erectile disfunction, or those that have been in some sort of accident?
How long until humans abuse this so you see late night infomercials telling you to inject smooth muscle cells into your penis for better erections?
Or most importantly, does this mean I am one step closer to my dream of a detachable penis*?!?!
(Via Boing Boing)
*This is an inside joke many of you are probably very glad that you don’t understand.
I love SMBC so, so much:
Though come on, I totally would have evolved a gun arm! That biologists must not have very high fitness.
Shocking, I know. It’s not a decree from the Pope himself, but it’s the attitude of Bishop Janusz Kaleta of Holy See, the Apostolic Administrator of Atyrau. When asked about gay and lesbian tourists visiting the Vatican, this is what he had to say:
“The church teachings are from the Bible. If we change this teaching, we will not be the Catholic Church. Don’t expect the Catholic church to change these issues, because it is our identity.” When asked if the Vatican is open to dialogue about welcoming such homosexual groups of tourists in the future, Bishop Kaleta responded that “such demonstrations are just not ethical.”
Yep, because religion is something that never changes, but homosexuality is totally a choice. Hmm, I feel like I heard that somewhere before… But anyway, so is the Bishop just against a gay pride parade going through St. Peter’s Square?
Publisher Steinmetz clarified that what was meant by gay travel was traveling for the purpose of a visit, not as a demonstration. To this the Bishop replied, “I consider if someone is homosexual, it is a provocation and an abuse of this place. Try to go to a mosque if you are not Muslim. It is abuse of our buildings and our religion because the church interprets our religion that it is not ethical. We expect respect of our church as we expect to respect that a person does not have to belong to the Catholic Church. If you have different ideas, go to a different location.”
Nope, simply being gay is provocative, abusive, and disrespectful. Not bears in assless chaps, not rainbow flags, not public make out sessions, not kisses, not holding hands – thought crimes of a homosexual nature are enough. You know how many gays probably go to the Vatican to stare in wonder at the Michelangelos and Berninis (who were probably gay)? Maybe the Vatican would be singing a different tune if they realized how much money they’d lose from banning everyone but upstanding, “moral” Catholics from visiting. Of course, I visited the Vatican when I was already calling myself an atheist, and I somehow didn’t manage to get kicked out (I was also 12 at the time…).
As CarnalNation pointed out, the Swiss Guard better start working on their gaydars.
If you follow me on twitter, you probably know that I’ve been freaking out about grad school lately because I’m applying to get my PhD…somewhere. It’s not so much change that scares me – I just really, really, really hate the unknown. It drives me insane not knowing where I’ll be living or what I’ll be studying in less than a year. Once I’m accepted and have made my decision, I know I’ll be incredibly excited. I’m contacting professors now, but it’s still driving me nuts. My current professor suggested I send snail mail, since emails either go to junk mail or get accidentally ignored most of the time. Hopefully I’ll get some responses.
For those of you who are in grad school or successfully made it through, do you have any advice? How to pick a professor/lab group/school? Red flags to look out for? How to survive without going insane? Awesome people studying the genetics and evolution of human sexual behavior (such a broad topic, I know)?
Last night the Hot Date* and I were wasting time around Borders before The Men Who Stare At Goats began (which was excellent and skeptic-y, by the way). I pointed out all the different biology books that I’ve been meaning to read (“…Why are there so many biology books about sex?” “…Do you need a reason?”), we flipped through the Book of Genesis illustrated by R. Crumb, and then of course we ended up in the sex section giggling like preteens. That’s where I found a much better version of the Bible, complete with old and new testaments!
After we were standing there for a while, a female student came up to me. “Jennifer?” she asks. “Yes?” “Jennifer McCreight?” “Er, yes?” I didn’t recognize her, but a lot of times random people I don’t know very well from the club say hi to me, so I thought maybe that was the case. She smiled and introduced herself very politely, then added “I’m from the Stewart Cooperative.”
I’ll be honest that my first thought was “Oh shit.” If you don’t remember why, the Stewart Cooperative was the group that put on the infamous Porn and Popcorn event that I tore to shreds on my blog a while back. In person I’m pretty non-confrontational, so I was kind of afraid that I was about to get drawn into a debate (though Hot Date probably would have found it amusing).
But then she surprised me. She apologized for the event and agreed that the message of Porn and Popcorn was bad. She thanked me for writing the review, and said that after reading it she realized how stupid some of the things were that were said. Apparently it was passed around the women of the cooperative, and many agreed with my opinions (though I still have my enemies, which is totally understandable). I commented that part of it was out of their hands – they don’t know exactly what a speaker is going to say when they get up there. She said that the event was suggested and coordinated mainly by alumni, and that many of the current Stewart women didn’t entirely realize what it was about, and that in the future they don’t want such things to happen. She also mentioned she still reads my blog – so hello, and thank you for being so nice!
I’m always incredibly pleased when a run-in like this happens. I have to say, I have significantly more positive run-ins than negative ones, even with people who I think are about to go off on me. It makes me feel that even when I think I’m just ranting, it can actually do some good.
Oh, and as a side note, of course she found me when I was tittering at some sex book. Way to confirm stereotypes about myself, haha.
*Yes, I find it incredibly fun to keep him secret from all of you guys Wilson-style. I’m weird.
‘Tis the season for cries about the “War on Christmas,” and what better way to start off than attempting to pass a law requiring Christmas carols in school.
Ms. Hyatt, 61, a substitute schoolteacher, is the chief proponent of a proposed California ballot initiative that would require the state’s public schools to offer Christmas music during the holiday season.
Ms. Hyatt said she was inspired to start her ballot drive after working at a school where only nondenominational songs were allowed at holiday parties.
That struck her as unfair.
“We feel kids love Christmas,” she said. “And we’re not allowed to play Christmas carols. And we think that’s wrong.”
I’m one of those types of atheists who loves Christmas. I celebrate it with my family and I love singing the songs, regardless if they’re about Jesus or Frosty the Snowman. I grew up singing Christmas carols in concerts for public schools, and it didn’t traumatize me. My family was secular and I didn’t feel left out; I just saw singing about Jesus’s divinity the same as singing about Santa (aka, silly and fictional). I’m still an atheist now – the Noel didn’t convert me.
That being said, my experiences do not represent those of every child. Some children of atheists may see it as one big silly joke, but children raised in Jewish families must certainly feel like the odd man out. They get their one token dradle song, and that’s it. But at least they get one song – what about the children of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Pagans, etc? Well, Ms. Hyatt has a solution for that:
As to whether people of other religious beliefs might take offense at having to carol, Ms. Hyatt, a Christian, said schools would be required to provide other rooms for other faiths, and students could opt out if offended. But she added that in her experience as a substitute teacher in schools in largely Latino, largely Christian neighborhoods in Southern California, she had not often encountered people who do not celebrate Christmas.
“I don’t think I’ve ever had a Jewish child in one of my classes,” she said. “If so they never said anything.”
Yes, because ostracizing small children even further by hiding them in a separate room and making them miss out on a fun party is an excellent idea. Way to show your tolerance and understanding.
There’s a point where I think secularization is unnecessary. I personally feel Christmas has pretty much lost it’s religious value; rather it represents having time off from school and work, being with family and friends, and spending a crapload of money on presents (yay capitalism). But to require all public schools to sing religious songs just isn’t right. Maybe let each school decide if it’s appropriate or not, but don’t force religion on all public students in California.
What do you guys think? Should there be no religious Christmas carols at all in public schools? Or have they lost their original meaning and it’s all for fun? I’d especially like to hear from those not raised in Christian families about their experiences and opinions.
(Hat tip to @jakiking)
I might have to start looking at Duke for grad school, after reading this article:
DURHAM, N.C. — A campus religious leader is unhappy about a study at Duke University that invites female students to attend parties where they can buy sex toys.
The News & Observer of Raleigh reported Friday that the director of the Duke Catholic Center has lodged a complaint with researchers. The Rev. Joe Vetter says the study doesn’t promote relationships.
Doesn’t promote relationships? What? Hey, maybe he uses his sex toys all alone, but I personally think sharing is caring. Anyway, what horrible things could this study be doing?! After purchase do they masturbate all over the desks of the classroom? Does it turn into a big lesbian orgy?!
The study asks female students over age 18 to attend the events that are similar to Tupperware parties but with erotic toys, lingerie and games. The women complete surveys about their sexual attitudes before and after the parties and get product discounts.
A spokesman for Duke said the sex-toy party project went through the peer review process.
Oh. Well. That’s considerably less exciting (though still awesome). Every year here at Purdue the Psychology department’s Human Sexuality class has a sex toy day, where people come in and talk about sex toys and give away free stuff. It was pretty awesome (though I didn’t get anything, sadness). I don’t remember the Catholic church exploding about that here, though that would have made it even more fun.
Oh, and one more gem:
Vetter says he plans to discuss the topic at Sunday mass.
Most interesting Sunday mass ever!
On a more serious note, are Catholics seriously against sex toys? Why the hell is it that religious people make sex so freaking impossible? Oh, abortion is evil, but you can’t use birth control to prevent abortion. Oh, sex before marriage is bad, but you can’t use a vibrator or masturbate to relieve those sexual pressures. Lovely.
Hey, do you love it when people mistake correlation for causation? How about when people imply atheists aren’t good people? Or when they think their silly religious beliefs are more important than massive problems in society? Well, then you’ll love what Lord Sacks said:
Lord Sacks blamed Europe’s falling birth rate on a culture of “consumerism and instant gratification”.
He said the continent was “dying” and accused its citizens of not being prepared for parenthood’s “sacrifices”…
The 61-year-old, who took his seat in the Lords last week, said: “Wherever you turn today – Jewish, Christian or Muslim – the more religious the community, the larger on average are their families.
“The major assault on religion today comes from the neo-Darwinians.” …
Lord Sacks said Europe was the most secular region in the world and the only continent seeing populations fall.
He said parenthood involved “massive sacrifices” of money, attention, time and emotional energy.
Linden over at Folklore of Pitong already did a good job exposing the bad science of this idea. In short, birth rates could be down since infant mortality has severely decreased with modern medicine. No need to replace your babies.
It pains the scientist in me when people confuse correlation with causation. Yes, secularism has risen and birth rates have dropped. Frozen food consumption has also risen, but I’m not going to jump to the conclusion that they cause infertility (maybe with the exception of Hot Pockets, I don’t trust those). However, things that contribute to secularism (rational thinking, scientific knowledge, improved education, better living conditions, etc) may all lead to someone deciding to have less kids.
But so what?
Why is having less kids a horrible thing? Because we’re not giving birth to all “generations not born” as Lord Sacks says? [cue musical overlay of Every Sperm is Sacred] That’s a pretty ridiculous way of thinking, if you ask me. Should we be churning out every baby possible like the Quiverfull movement? I kind of prefer being more than a walking baby making machine, than you very much. What about all those precious egg cells wasted before a woman gets married (which I’m sure is the only appropriate time to reproduce in Lord Sacks’s mind)? Might as well start marrying off girls after their first period – can’t go wasting all of those potential children.
Does Lord Sacks even care that the world is horrendously overpopulated? If anything, reduced birth rates are a wonderful thing. This may irk some people, but I personally feel it’s somewhat socially irresponsible to purposefully have more than two children (“oops”s are understandable). To do more than replace yourself contributes to the problem of overpopulation and is a burden to not only society, but to your children who will have to live in said society. For Lord Sacks to be completely oblivious to this is unacceptable.
Of course, I’m an evil, birth-control-using atheist, so I guess I’m simply biased.
Oh, and atheists don’t make sacrifices, don’t want to invest emotional energy, yadda yadda. It’s sad when hearing such ridiculous and slanderous things said about me doesn’t even warrant a response anymore. I’m getting so used to it, that I don’t even want to waste my time pointing out that it’s utter bullshit. Secular people have children, and like all people, love them very much. Quantity isn’t better than quality when it comes to raising kids, Lord Sacks.