FeminismIsFree!

While I enjoyed Bill Maher’s mockumentary on religion, I didn’t find that it rocked my world in a significant way. However, there were two statements that Bill made, both near the end of the movie, that did perk up my “thought-inducing” antennae.

Warning: Very mild spoilers below.

Continue Reading »

I’ve been feeling a little sensitive lately on the subject of, er, “science.” Er, “science” is defined as the stuff put forth by various ideologues and media hacks that contains science-y sounding words in an attempt by them to impress whatever hair they’ve gotten up their ass at that particular moment into other people’s brains.

So when I stumbled across this article, my interest was definitely piqued–it begins thusly:

The job of science reporters is to take complicated subjects and translate them for readers who are not scientifically sophisticated. Critics say that the news media oversimplify and aren’t skeptical enough of financing by special interests.

Somebody else has noticed this problematic trend! I am thrilled. Seriously. The main difference between the article author’s take on the situation and mine is that she seems to feel that said oversimplification and credulity are more accidental than not. I think that some of it goes beyond oversimplification into outright agenda-oriented slanting and that the credulity is, at the minimum, blindly willful. Or maybe I just don’t want to believe that so many people could really be THAT stupid…she does have some great advice for those who are screwing up science for public consumption out of well-meaning ignorance, though.

-Look for the evidence. News organizations should give weight to scientific evidence, whether it is about global warming or what the medical establishment says about Lyme disease.

Post science reporter David Brown, who is also a physician, talked about this in a recent speech at the University of Iowa. It will be published next year. “In science, there is a natural tension between evidence and opinion, and evidence always wins. What authority figures have to say about anything in science is ultimately irrelevant.”

That’s just beautiful. (sniff!)

-Look for context. Are the results preliminary? Does the research conflict with or confirm earlier work? Has it been published in a reputable science journal or been presented at a science meeting?

Put more plainly: No matter how beautifully some crackpot “science” article dovetails with your personal preconceptions, you don’t get to jump upon it like a starving tiger shrieking to the world that you’ve found “scientific proof of–!” unless it meets the above criteria.

-Look beyond the lead paragraph and headline. Remember that antioxidants were touted to prevent all sorts of disease; research proved that not to be true. One recent Page 1 story, by veteran Post science reporter Rob Stein, attracted comment and criticism. Stein wrote that a study produced “powerful evidence” that a blood test designed to monitor inflammation could identify “seemingly healthy people who are at increased risk for a heart attack or stroke” and that a widely used statin drug offered “potent protection against the nation’s leading killers.” The story quoted the study’s author and other prominent experts as calling the findings a “breakthrough,” a “blockbuster” and “absolutely paradigm-shifting.”

The Foundation for Integrative AIDS Research (FIAR) — which has a stake in the issue because AIDS drugs can raise “bad” cholesterol levels — said stories about the study reflected “shoddy boosterism for the pharmaceutical industry rather than a careful and balanced analysis.”

and

-”Marcia Angell, a physician and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine who is now a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School, said journalists can write “overly dramatic” stories for “gullible” readers. “Everyone has an interest in hyping news of medical research — the researcher, the institution, reporters. Readers should be very skeptical of new findings. Newspapers are in the business of telling you the news, which needs to be startling or counterintuitive or flies in the face of what we knew. By definition these stories are less likely to be accurate.”

Don J. Melnick, professor of conservation biology at Columbia University, said that if a story “doesn’t sound newsworthy or front page-worthy, it will be buried or not printed at all. That tends to promote people hyping the research. They have to convince their editors to put it in the paper.”

In other words: “Buyer beware.”

In related news, via PZ at Pharyngula:

CNN, the Cable News Network, announced yesterday that it will cut its entire science, technology, and environment news staff, including Miles O’Brien, its chief technology and environment correspondent, as well as six executive producers. Mediabistro’s TVNewser broke the story.

“We want to integrate environmental, science and technology reporting into the general editorial structure rather than have a stand alone unit,” said CNN spokesperson Barbara Levin. “Now that the bulk of our environmental coverage is being offered through the Planet in Peril franchise, which is produced by the Anderson Cooper 360 program, there is no need for a separate unit.”

I’m a little startled by the assertion here that environmental science news is the overwhelming bulk of all science reporting out there and once you’ve got some dude covering that, you don’t really NEED anybody else to cover any other science-y topic, b’Gad!

No, I will not immediately assume that the average IQ of the general editorial structure is twenty points lower than that of the previous science, technology and environmental news staff, nor make any snarky remarks of any other description. I will just regard it as yet another sign of the coming apocalypse, like when I found out that Ann Coulter was going to pointlessly destroy another crop of innocent young trees by putting out yet another book.*

*The suggested titles in the linked article are awesome and now that the super-secret book title has been revealed, surprisingly on target. Or perhaps not surprisingly.

This is so awful, I can’t even make fun of it, nor can I decide what despicable factor went into creating this horrible situation the most. Racism? Sexism? Classism? Authoritarian brutality? Somebody else will have to decide. Disgusting all the way around.

Police Get The Wrong House In Galveston, Allegedly Assault 12-Year-Old Girl

Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:37:01 PM
It was a little before 8 at night when the breaker went out at Emily Milburn’s home in Galveston. She was busy preparing her children for school the next day, so she asked her 12-year-old daughter, Dymond, to pop outside and turn the switch back on.

As Dymond headed toward the breaker, a blue van drove up and three men jumped out rushing toward her. One of them grabbed her saying, “You’re a prostitute. You’re coming with me.”

Dymond grabbed onto a tree and started screaming, “Daddy, Daddy, Daddy.” One of the men covered her mouth. Two of the men beat her about the face and throat.

As it turned out, the three men were plain-clothed Galveston police officers who had been called to the area regarding three white prostitutes soliciting a white man and a black drug dealer.

All this is according to a lawsuit filed in Galveston federal court by Milburn against the officers. The lawsuit alleges that the officers thought Dymond, an African-American, was a hooker due to the “tight shorts” she was wearing, despite not fitting the racial description of any of the female suspects. The police went to the wrong house, two blocks away from the area of the reported illegal activity, Milburn’s attorney, Anthony Griffin, tells Hair Balls.

After the incident, Dymond was hospitalized and suffered black eyes as well as throat and ear drum injuries.

Three weeks later, according to the lawsuit, police went to Dymond’s school, where she was an honor student, and arrested her for assaulting a public servant. Griffin says the allegations stem from when Dymond fought back against the three men who were trying to take her from her home. The case went to trial, but the judge declared it a mistrial on the first day, says Griffin. The new trial is set for February.

“I think we’ll be okay,” says Griffin. “I don’t think a jury will find a 12-year-old girl guilty who’s just sitting outside her house. Any 12-year-old attacked by three men and told that she’s a prostitute is going to scream and yell for Daddy and hit back and do whatever she can. She’s scared to death.”

Since the incident more than two years ago, Dymond regularly suffers nightmares in which police officers are raping and beating her and cutting off her fingers, according to the lawsuit.
Griffin says he expects to enter mediation with the officers in early 2009 to resolve the lawsuit.

We’ve got calls in to the officers’ lawyer; we’ll let you know if we hear something.

Update: This is from the officers’ lawyer, William Helfand:

Both the daughter and the father were arrested for assaulting a peace officer. “The father basically attacked police officers as they were trying to take the daughter into custody after she ran off.”

Also, “The city has investigated the matter and found that the conduct of the police officers was appropriate under the circumstances,” Helfand says. “It’s unfortunate that sometimes police officers have to use force against people who are using force against them. And the evidence will show that both these folks violated the law and forcefully resisted arrest.”

– Chris Vogel

(via)

The $54 million pants suit unravels again

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A court Thursday rejected an appeal filed by a former administrative law judge who sued a dry cleaners for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals “ruled resoundingly in favor of the Chung family and denied Mr. Roy Pearson’s appeal of the case completely,” said Christopher Manning, an attorney for the Chung family, who own Custom Cleaners.

“The D.C. Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly ruled that Mr. Pearson’s claims had no merit whatsoever,” he added.

Pearson initially sought $67 million from the Chungs, calculating the amount by estimating years of legal violations, adding nearly $2 million in common law claims for fraud.

The saga began in May 2005, when Pearson took several pairs of pants to Custom Cleaners for alteration as he prepared to start his new job as an administrative law judge. He alleged that among them was a pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit. When he came to collect his clothing, he said, the Chungs tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that were not his.

During a two-day trial, Pearson, who represented himself, said that when he took the pants to the cleaners, his financial situation was precarious: He had just been ordered to pay $12,000 in attorney’s fees to his ex-wife, and his credit cards were at their limit.

See? It is! Those gold-digging, frivolous, flighty women! Mr. Pearson had a very serious and legitimate reason for this lawsuit—

He claimed millions of dollars in attorney fees and millions more in punitive damages for what he called fraudulent advertising under the law. He also claimed that a sign in the store’s window promising “satisfaction guaranteed” was an unconditional warranty that required the defendants to honor any claim by any customer without limitation.

My dry cleaners have been gettin’ over for years. Next time I drop off a dress, I’m gonna demand that free massage that I assure you the lack of is one of the reasons I am not perfectly satisfied with my life at present. Seriously, all this writing has left me with chronic ach-y shoulders. If you’re going to advertise yourself as providing “services” with “satisfaction guaranteed,” seriously–!

Now, this part’s not very funny:

“The 3½ years this case has been pending and appealed have been very difficult for the Chungs,” he said. “They lost two of their dry cleaning stores and their realization of the American dream.”

He said the family wants to “quietly return to their one remaining small dry-cleaning store … to rebuild their lives.”

That really sucks.

Back to the farce–

Pearson may request that the appeal be heard again by the entire panel of D.C. Court of Appeals judges, Manning said. He also could petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for an appeal.

Pearson was taken off the bench in May 2007 while the lawsuit was pending and was not reappointed as an administrative law judge when his term expired.

He filed a federal lawsuit in May 2008 to get his government job back, accusing city government and others of an “unlawful demotion and subsequent termination.” That suit remains pending.

Fired, divorced–gee, what a shocker! Hopefully he doesn’t have any pets–we may soon be witnessing the first civil case against a domesticated animal for “mental stress.” Or maybe the first civil case filed by a domesticated animal for “mental stress.” Stay tuned!

An Assortment of Holiday Gifts for Your Lovely Wife
By Esquire

Nope, not making this up! I was visiting Yahoo.com for some other, entirely unrelated reason such as looking up old ’80s rock videos or trying to find a Chinese restaurant within twenty miles of my house, and the above article popped up instead. It’s hard to resist a headline like that, though it does give rise to immediate musings like the title of this post. “A paper bag for her head” comes to mind, or maybe in that case you just use this list to shop for your lovely mistress! Fascinatingly enough, there are no holiday gift shopping recommendations that I could find entitled, “An Assortment of Gifts for Your Handsome Husband.” Apparently there is no cultural need to tack a hawwtness rating to the male spouse; you should probably just be thanking your lucky stars that you have one at all.

After reading through the, er, assortment, it becomes clear that this particular gift guide is actually only useful to those men who are married to a cliche. For the rest of you guys, I strongly suggest you simply ask her what she wants. Because it’s probably not any of the ridiculous stuff on this list. The winners, in my opinion:

(via)

(Hat tip.)

From some dude named Garth George in New Zealand:

…men and women are different physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. It astounds me that in this age in which knowledge of the makeup of the human being is greater than at any time in history, we will not concede that men and women are genetically programmed for differing roles.*

(via)

Now, this sounds kinda familiar. What was that advice column thing I was cheerfully mocking the other day…oh yeah!

…women should never, ever pursue a man. Instead [wait] for the man to initiate and plan dates…If the woman is always the one calling, she will never know if he is really interested in her or if it’s just convenient for him. She may find herself questioning the relationship every step of the way. Men simply aren’t programmed to think like that and therefore are better suited to the chase…

New rule: Nobody is allowed to use the phrase “genetic programming” or any related phrases harking back to that concept and be taken remotely seriously unless he or she can, right now (no Googling!) define for me what a gene is, and no bullshit copouts like “the basic building blocks of life!” either–if your definition can be stretched to include any other scientific and/or philosophical or theological concepts besides genes, it ain’t one. You are also required to know the definition of any and all words used in the definition, and you are not allowed to use any part or variation of the word “gene” to define a gene.

Go!

::crickets chirping::

*He has somehow managed to link this to abortion; I read his article three times and still couldn’t figure out how he got from point A to point M or N. I wish better luck to anybody else that makes the attempt.