Wednesday, April 27, 2011
I moved!
I moved and forgot to say where to until...well, just now. I've been blogging over at my blog of the same title on Tumblr since June. Check it.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Updating for the sake of updating...
I'm in the process of moving and working full time and running all over the place, but I had to give a shoutout to Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel's fantastic column in The Washington Post (Not that she particularly needs my shoutouts, but wev). A flavor:
We learned once more, at a very high price, that markets need laws and limits. Self-regulating markets are a myth, voluntary regulation a cover for corruption.The whole thing is a fantastic read. Will post more when I'm not quite so tired and have caught up on things. Whee!Cleaning up the Washington mess was, back in the day, a central part of Obama's attraction as a force of change. That's why the deals cut in the health-care legislation, so patently part of the old way of doing things, were dismaying. That's why bailing out the banks without vigorously reorganizing them has been so corrosive. And that's why the president's halting, at times inarticulate, response to the catastrophe in the gulf has been painful to witness.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Antivaxers are crazy and wrong. Also, the sun rose in the east this morning.
So I'm currently writing a term paper (due at midnight) with a medico-anthropological perspective on the anti-vaccination movement. From a writing perspective, this is a sensible topic. There's a fair amount of research; the impact of the Internet provides some interesting areas to explore; it could technically be considered a form of alternative medicine, particularly since "pox parties" and "flu parties" have been receiving a lot of attention in the last year or so and it certainly goes against the teaching of Western biomedicine; and, perhaps more importantly, the exploration of all these topics will easily give me the requisite six to 10 pages of writing.
Why, then, do I have massive writer's block? The answer is simple, dear Amaryllis: It is very, very difficult to write this paper objectively and without at some point saying, "Look, I get that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but seriously - these people are wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong, irresponsible, and most importantly, wrong!"
In the last few hours that I've been researching, I've read more crazy that I ever wanted to. Here is one example, courtesy of the ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute (warning: May induce massive facepalm):
Here's a sliver of my family's experience with vaccines. Take it for what you will. My parents had a dear friend when I was very young; his name was Lew, and he was one of the sweetest, funniest guys around. He was my introduction to "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" and "Brazil" - two of my favorite movies to this day, though Brazil creeped me out when I was little. He was always bringing me and my brother presents; tractors for him, usually, and crayons or other toys for me.
Lew used crutches everywhere he went. One of my vividest early memories is tripping over them when he was sitting on our couch. When he was a kid, he just barely missed the age limit for getting the polio vaccine - he was just a year or two older than my parents. He contracted the virus and his legs were partly paralyzed. He died when I was still pretty young - six or seven, maybe - from complications associated with that childhood case of polio. His was the first funeral I remember attending. Now, this was a good few years ago, and I doubt that most of the parents now refusing to give their children the polio vaccine because it is "dangerous" understand the consequences of not doing so. No doubt they've heard some stories as tragic as Lew's. The main difference here is that mortality rates from illnesses like Lew's have been greatly reduced by the action antivaxers scorn, while childhood mortality rates have not increased with the use of vaccines.
On the other hand, my brother and I have both had all our shots. I've even had shots most people don't get because I went to Africa in 2006. Neither of us is autistic. Neither of us had SIDS. We both have solid immune systems and no epilepsy, no seizures, no neurological damage, nada. Not only that, but we've never had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, smallpox, tetanus, yellow fever, polio, influenza or hepatitis. Neither of us will ever be paralyzed by the unseen the way Lew was, nor will we need an iron lung or be permanently pockmarked. True story. And you know why? Because my mom, who sees value in natural treatments - ginger tea for an upset stomach, echinicea for colds - also saw what those diseases did when she was growing up. When serious illness comes up, my mom treats it with real medicines, not orange juice and organic food.
Vaccines may have some associated risks, but those risks are far less serious than the diseases vaccines prevent. Not only that, but vaccines are based in science, not superstitious nonsense. Everyone is, of course, entitled to his or her opinion, but when your opinion is stupid and dangerous I have a really hard time pretending that it isn't. I know, I know - we're supposed to keep open minds and not be ethnocentric and use cultural relativism as a lens to understand beliefs without judging them and so on and so forth. But I'm sorry - these people grew up in the same culture I did. They are apparently incapable of rational thought.
The closer I get to graduation, the more I realize that I cannot handle academic life in this major. It's hard not to dismiss people based on their utter, utter ignorant wrongness. And I get that they probably feel about me the same way that I do about them - I really do. I just can't see what relevance that has when my beliefs are not based on word-of-mouth horror stories, bad science, and woo.
I totally feel like Penny in this QC comic right now.
Why, then, do I have massive writer's block? The answer is simple, dear Amaryllis: It is very, very difficult to write this paper objectively and without at some point saying, "Look, I get that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but seriously - these people are wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong, irresponsible, and most importantly, wrong!"
In the last few hours that I've been researching, I've read more crazy that I ever wanted to. Here is one example, courtesy of the ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute (warning: May induce massive facepalm):
And that's just one of the FAQs. On one of the websites. "Use vitamin C to induce diarrhea and flush the toxins of vaccines from your baby's system!" Jonas Salk, give me strength!Q. Dear Thinktwice, I love your website. Is there any way that the immunization shots can be flushed out of the system? Please email me if there is a way this can be done.
...
Q. What can parents do once they've already immunized their children? Our children did not experience any "noticeable" harmful effects, at least in the short term. Do you know of any remedies that can be administered to undo the harm we have already done in ignorance? What options do we have?
...
A. I have heard Dr. Viera Scheibner, author of "Vaccination: 100 Years..." recommend doses of vitamin C, just high enough to cause a mild case of diarrhea. However, some health specialists claim that viral vaccines probably remain in the system for life. We suggest feeding your children with healthy, wholesome, organic foods. Some naturopaths and homeopaths (check your local telephone book) may have other protocols. Our website also provides Alternatives and Solutions -- a list of organizations and practitioners that claim some success flushing vaccines from the system and/or reversing vaccine damage.
Here's a sliver of my family's experience with vaccines. Take it for what you will. My parents had a dear friend when I was very young; his name was Lew, and he was one of the sweetest, funniest guys around. He was my introduction to "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" and "Brazil" - two of my favorite movies to this day, though Brazil creeped me out when I was little. He was always bringing me and my brother presents; tractors for him, usually, and crayons or other toys for me.
Lew used crutches everywhere he went. One of my vividest early memories is tripping over them when he was sitting on our couch. When he was a kid, he just barely missed the age limit for getting the polio vaccine - he was just a year or two older than my parents. He contracted the virus and his legs were partly paralyzed. He died when I was still pretty young - six or seven, maybe - from complications associated with that childhood case of polio. His was the first funeral I remember attending. Now, this was a good few years ago, and I doubt that most of the parents now refusing to give their children the polio vaccine because it is "dangerous" understand the consequences of not doing so. No doubt they've heard some stories as tragic as Lew's. The main difference here is that mortality rates from illnesses like Lew's have been greatly reduced by the action antivaxers scorn, while childhood mortality rates have not increased with the use of vaccines.
On the other hand, my brother and I have both had all our shots. I've even had shots most people don't get because I went to Africa in 2006. Neither of us is autistic. Neither of us had SIDS. We both have solid immune systems and no epilepsy, no seizures, no neurological damage, nada. Not only that, but we've never had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, smallpox, tetanus, yellow fever, polio, influenza or hepatitis. Neither of us will ever be paralyzed by the unseen the way Lew was, nor will we need an iron lung or be permanently pockmarked. True story. And you know why? Because my mom, who sees value in natural treatments - ginger tea for an upset stomach, echinicea for colds - also saw what those diseases did when she was growing up. When serious illness comes up, my mom treats it with real medicines, not orange juice and organic food.
Vaccines may have some associated risks, but those risks are far less serious than the diseases vaccines prevent. Not only that, but vaccines are based in science, not superstitious nonsense. Everyone is, of course, entitled to his or her opinion, but when your opinion is stupid and dangerous I have a really hard time pretending that it isn't. I know, I know - we're supposed to keep open minds and not be ethnocentric and use cultural relativism as a lens to understand beliefs without judging them and so on and so forth. But I'm sorry - these people grew up in the same culture I did. They are apparently incapable of rational thought.
The closer I get to graduation, the more I realize that I cannot handle academic life in this major. It's hard not to dismiss people based on their utter, utter ignorant wrongness. And I get that they probably feel about me the same way that I do about them - I really do. I just can't see what relevance that has when my beliefs are not based on word-of-mouth horror stories, bad science, and woo.
I totally feel like Penny in this QC comic right now.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Proust Questionnaire
Found this while poking around on the Internet. From the source:
I'm going to try doing this now, then again in a few years so I can see what changed. It should be fun!
_________________________________
What is your dream of happiness?
Exploring places - all kinds of places, all by myself. Getting a job at a graphic design studio and making posters and prints for musicians and concert venues, or running a magazine that makes interesting things available to as many people as possible. Falling in love. Walking on perfect spring and fall Technicolor afternoons.
What is your idea of misery?
Accounting.
Where would you like to live?
Someplace with lots of people and energy. A city preferably? Chicago is nice, but I haven't been to nearly enough places to be able to answer this properly. Right now, Chicago, or maybe London.
What qualities do you admire most in a man?
Manual dexterity; that sounds stupid, but I really admire people that can do things with their hands. Intelligence. Charm. Good manners. Convictions. Empathy. Curiosity. Competence. Mystery. A peculiar sort of energy and magnetism that is difficult to describe in words but which seems to result in part from a combination of the aforementioned qualities plus a little something extra.
What qualities do you admire most in a woman?
Same as above.
What is your chief characteristic?
People usualy say intelligence, so I suppose we'll go with that, though I don't think I'm nearly as smart as people make me out to be.
What is your principal fault?
Arrogance. Laziness. Procrastination. A tendency to shoot off my mouth when I should know better. Being too retiring. Swearing too much. Also, I overshare.
What is your greatest extravagance?
Late-night trips to Walmart.
What faults in others are you most tolerant of?
Being an asshole. Being a smartass. Promiscuity. Alcoholism and drug use. Flirting too much.
What do you value most about your friends?
They're smart and funny and sexy and interesting. Duh.
What characteristic do you dislike most in others?
Stupidity.
What characteristic do you dislike most in yourself?
I'm kind of a bitch and sometimes I don't know when to rein it in.
What is your favourite virtue?
Kindness, as long as it isn't saccharine.
What is your favourite occupation?
I'm gonna go with journalism, but I mean real journalism, not that school-concert-review bullshit.
What would you like to be?
A spy in the 1940s French Resistance. Failing that? Someone who uses her talents and accepts her limits.
What is your favourite colour?
Green, closely followed by everything except yellow.
What is your favourite flower?
Marigolds. Croci. Narcissi. Daffodils.
What is your favourite bird?
Sparrows.
What historical figure do you admire the most?
FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt. Kurt Vonnegut, though I'm not convinced he's historical quite yet. Anybody who did something noble and didn't pretend to be something he or she wasn't.
What character in history do you most dislike?
James Watson, closely followed by Frances Crick. Also anybody held up as a paragon who is revealed, upon closer examination, to be kind of a douchebag.
Who are your favourite prose authors?
Dorothy Sayers, Kurt Vonnegut, Jane Austen, Wilkie Collins, Joseph Heller, Neil Gaiman, Shakespeare of course though I'm not convinced the plays couldn't fall under poetry as well, and a number of others. And I'm throwing Roger Ebert in as well.
Who are your favourite poets?
Robert Pinsky, Bob Dylan, Seamus Heaney. I haven't read enough poetry to be able to answer this properly, though. I'm really much more of a prose girl.
Who are your favourite heroes in fiction?
The Doctor. John Constantine. Spike. Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane. Elizabeth Bennet. Yossarian. Jonathan Creek. Jake and Elwood Blues. Beatrice and Benedick.
Who are your heroes in real life?
My mom. Jane Goodall. Clea Koff. Anybody who sees a difficult or challenging task and runs into it head-on, knowing the consequences and acting anyway.
Who is your favourite painter?
Edward Hopper. Rembrandt. Anybody that can capture emotion.
Who is your favourite musician?
I absolutely cannot choose one, or even a few. It depends on too many factors.
What is your favourite food?
My mom's lentil soup.
What is your favourite drink?
Non-alcoholic...tea, limeade, orange juice or water.
Alcoholic...I'm still figuring that out, but I like screwdrivers and rum and rum-containing mixed drinks. Mojitos are good. I like some beer, but not cheap beer or really strong stuff.
What are your favourite names?
Some Greek, some Irish, some Welsh, some English. They are many and varied and are frequently associated with people I am or were fond of.
What is it you most dislike?
Stupidity, closely followed by wilful ignorance, closely followed by ignorance.
What natural talent would you most like to possess?
Remember that magnetism I mentioned earlier? It's more of a quality than a talent, but I really wish I had it. Failing that, some sort of musical talent.
How do you want to die?
Quickly and quietly.
What is your current state of mind?
At the moment? Calm and impatient and distracted all at once.
What do you consider your greatest accomplishment?
Still working on this one.
What is your motto?
Love all, trust few, do harm to none.
(I sort of ripped it off.)
The Proust Questionnaire was not invented by Marcel Proust, but it was a much loved game by the French author and many of his contemporaries. The idea behind the questionnaire is that the answers are supposed to reveal the respondent's "true" personality.
I'm going to try doing this now, then again in a few years so I can see what changed. It should be fun!
_________________________________
What is your dream of happiness?
Exploring places - all kinds of places, all by myself. Getting a job at a graphic design studio and making posters and prints for musicians and concert venues, or running a magazine that makes interesting things available to as many people as possible. Falling in love. Walking on perfect spring and fall Technicolor afternoons.
What is your idea of misery?
Accounting.
Where would you like to live?
Someplace with lots of people and energy. A city preferably? Chicago is nice, but I haven't been to nearly enough places to be able to answer this properly. Right now, Chicago, or maybe London.
What qualities do you admire most in a man?
Manual dexterity; that sounds stupid, but I really admire people that can do things with their hands. Intelligence. Charm. Good manners. Convictions. Empathy. Curiosity. Competence. Mystery. A peculiar sort of energy and magnetism that is difficult to describe in words but which seems to result in part from a combination of the aforementioned qualities plus a little something extra.
What qualities do you admire most in a woman?
Same as above.
What is your chief characteristic?
People usualy say intelligence, so I suppose we'll go with that, though I don't think I'm nearly as smart as people make me out to be.
What is your principal fault?
Arrogance. Laziness. Procrastination. A tendency to shoot off my mouth when I should know better. Being too retiring. Swearing too much. Also, I overshare.
What is your greatest extravagance?
Late-night trips to Walmart.
What faults in others are you most tolerant of?
Being an asshole. Being a smartass. Promiscuity. Alcoholism and drug use. Flirting too much.
What do you value most about your friends?
They're smart and funny and sexy and interesting. Duh.
What characteristic do you dislike most in others?
Stupidity.
What characteristic do you dislike most in yourself?
I'm kind of a bitch and sometimes I don't know when to rein it in.
What is your favourite virtue?
Kindness, as long as it isn't saccharine.
What is your favourite occupation?
I'm gonna go with journalism, but I mean real journalism, not that school-concert-review bullshit.
What would you like to be?
A spy in the 1940s French Resistance. Failing that? Someone who uses her talents and accepts her limits.
What is your favourite colour?
Green, closely followed by everything except yellow.
What is your favourite flower?
Marigolds. Croci. Narcissi. Daffodils.
What is your favourite bird?
Sparrows.
What historical figure do you admire the most?
FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt. Kurt Vonnegut, though I'm not convinced he's historical quite yet. Anybody who did something noble and didn't pretend to be something he or she wasn't.
What character in history do you most dislike?
James Watson, closely followed by Frances Crick. Also anybody held up as a paragon who is revealed, upon closer examination, to be kind of a douchebag.
Who are your favourite prose authors?
Dorothy Sayers, Kurt Vonnegut, Jane Austen, Wilkie Collins, Joseph Heller, Neil Gaiman, Shakespeare of course though I'm not convinced the plays couldn't fall under poetry as well, and a number of others. And I'm throwing Roger Ebert in as well.
Who are your favourite poets?
Robert Pinsky, Bob Dylan, Seamus Heaney. I haven't read enough poetry to be able to answer this properly, though. I'm really much more of a prose girl.
Who are your favourite heroes in fiction?
The Doctor. John Constantine. Spike. Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane. Elizabeth Bennet. Yossarian. Jonathan Creek. Jake and Elwood Blues. Beatrice and Benedick.
Who are your heroes in real life?
My mom. Jane Goodall. Clea Koff. Anybody who sees a difficult or challenging task and runs into it head-on, knowing the consequences and acting anyway.
Who is your favourite painter?
Edward Hopper. Rembrandt. Anybody that can capture emotion.
Who is your favourite musician?
I absolutely cannot choose one, or even a few. It depends on too many factors.
What is your favourite food?
My mom's lentil soup.
What is your favourite drink?
Non-alcoholic...tea, limeade, orange juice or water.
Alcoholic...I'm still figuring that out, but I like screwdrivers and rum and rum-containing mixed drinks. Mojitos are good. I like some beer, but not cheap beer or really strong stuff.
What are your favourite names?
Some Greek, some Irish, some Welsh, some English. They are many and varied and are frequently associated with people I am or were fond of.
What is it you most dislike?
Stupidity, closely followed by wilful ignorance, closely followed by ignorance.
What natural talent would you most like to possess?
Remember that magnetism I mentioned earlier? It's more of a quality than a talent, but I really wish I had it. Failing that, some sort of musical talent.
How do you want to die?
Quickly and quietly.
What is your current state of mind?
At the moment? Calm and impatient and distracted all at once.
What do you consider your greatest accomplishment?
Still working on this one.
What is your motto?
Love all, trust few, do harm to none.
(I sort of ripped it off.)
Monday, February 1, 2010
New feature: Things I learned today
So I have a confession to make: It's easy to forget that you're a student when you work fulltime, particularly at a newspaper.
I'm not talking about the nuts-and-bolts parts. I do readings and go to class and study for exams; however, in the last couple of weeks I've found myself neglecting other parts of being a student - things like simply exercising my mind or working to learn something beyond the books and beyond the practical, day-to-day things I need to know in order to do my job properly. The job tends to take over quickly and my mind tends to fill up very rapidly with things that are necessary to do that job - things like how to file a public information request or fill out a reimbursement form, both of which are major thorns in my side that I have to deal with all the time. Even more abstract things, like what kinds of coverage to push for on the sports page, end up taking precedent over non-essential information-gathering.
Is it really non-essential, though? I've always been a fan of knowledge for knowledge's sake. I wouldn't be a social science major if I didn't believe that aggregating and processing information are as important as implementing that information practically, and of late I've shamefully neglected my aggregation of non-job-related information. It's ridiculous. I can't (and shouldn't) let my job rule my mental life to that extent.
To that end, I'm using this blog in part as the journal it's designed for. Every day, I will post a new entry of things or people I learned of or about that day. It doesn't have to be in-depth or essential knowledge, just something I didn't have to look up or learn about as part of being a semi-competent editor. The goal? A minimum of two things per day. It shouldn't be hard to meet and I may increase it, but it's a starting point.
So. Here goes entry No. 1. Things I learned about today:
1. I learned about red-green colorblindness, which I've always been curious about because colors are such a major part of how I perceive the world. I couldn't even imagine what the world looked like to a colorblind person; even the simulated images made no sense at all and I was frankly pretty incredulous about them. It came up today when I was talking to the managing editor - who happens to be red-green colorblind - because I was writing on a wipe-off board with a red marker. We ended up looking up all kinds of simulations and comparing photos. It turns out that red and green both look this sort of hideous olive-y green-yellow to people with red-green colorblindness, which isn't news to those of you who ARE colorblind but which still completely blows my mind. Also, some people with colorblindness can still apparently distinguish between red and green when they're separate, just not when they're together. The whole perception thing continues to blow my mind, especially since I can't imagine never seeing the color red or experiencing it the same way the majority of other people do. The whole thing is fascinating and has me thinking about all kinds of sensory perceptions that are governed entirely or almost entirely by brain wiring. Neuroscience is insane!
2. I learned that Dr. Paul Farmer is a complete badass. We talked a lot about his work in Haiti today and although this doesn't technically count since we covered it in class, I'd really, really like to learn more about his work. Paul Farmer, for those of you who don't know, is a doctor and medical anthropologist who co-founded a group called Partners in Health that works to improve health in developing nations by helping people obtain drugs and improve their living conditions. He's done a ton of social and ethnographic work in different places but has done a lot in Haiti. He's also received a MacArthur Genius grant, is a continuing lecturer at Harvard, graduated from the top of his class at Harvard while still doing social work in Haiti and returning home only for lab practicals and exams, and has a list of other accomplishments as long as a very long-armed person's arm. I imagine it would be difficult to live with him, because he is an extremely driven, intelligent and charming person who has accomplished a great deal and clearly expects a great deal of himself and others. He's a fascinating person who has done a great deal to further the cause of human health, though.
3. I learned that my classmates apparently do not understand the irony of handing out Haitian-style cake and hot chocolate during a video about how much it sucks to be in Haiti right now.
And that's all. It wasn't a terribly learning-packed day, but hopefully this assignment will help me focus on things other than getting through class and getting through work. We'll see how it goes.
I'm not talking about the nuts-and-bolts parts. I do readings and go to class and study for exams; however, in the last couple of weeks I've found myself neglecting other parts of being a student - things like simply exercising my mind or working to learn something beyond the books and beyond the practical, day-to-day things I need to know in order to do my job properly. The job tends to take over quickly and my mind tends to fill up very rapidly with things that are necessary to do that job - things like how to file a public information request or fill out a reimbursement form, both of which are major thorns in my side that I have to deal with all the time. Even more abstract things, like what kinds of coverage to push for on the sports page, end up taking precedent over non-essential information-gathering.
Is it really non-essential, though? I've always been a fan of knowledge for knowledge's sake. I wouldn't be a social science major if I didn't believe that aggregating and processing information are as important as implementing that information practically, and of late I've shamefully neglected my aggregation of non-job-related information. It's ridiculous. I can't (and shouldn't) let my job rule my mental life to that extent.
To that end, I'm using this blog in part as the journal it's designed for. Every day, I will post a new entry of things or people I learned of or about that day. It doesn't have to be in-depth or essential knowledge, just something I didn't have to look up or learn about as part of being a semi-competent editor. The goal? A minimum of two things per day. It shouldn't be hard to meet and I may increase it, but it's a starting point.
So. Here goes entry No. 1. Things I learned about today:
1. I learned about red-green colorblindness, which I've always been curious about because colors are such a major part of how I perceive the world. I couldn't even imagine what the world looked like to a colorblind person; even the simulated images made no sense at all and I was frankly pretty incredulous about them. It came up today when I was talking to the managing editor - who happens to be red-green colorblind - because I was writing on a wipe-off board with a red marker. We ended up looking up all kinds of simulations and comparing photos. It turns out that red and green both look this sort of hideous olive-y green-yellow to people with red-green colorblindness, which isn't news to those of you who ARE colorblind but which still completely blows my mind. Also, some people with colorblindness can still apparently distinguish between red and green when they're separate, just not when they're together. The whole perception thing continues to blow my mind, especially since I can't imagine never seeing the color red or experiencing it the same way the majority of other people do. The whole thing is fascinating and has me thinking about all kinds of sensory perceptions that are governed entirely or almost entirely by brain wiring. Neuroscience is insane!
2. I learned that Dr. Paul Farmer is a complete badass. We talked a lot about his work in Haiti today and although this doesn't technically count since we covered it in class, I'd really, really like to learn more about his work. Paul Farmer, for those of you who don't know, is a doctor and medical anthropologist who co-founded a group called Partners in Health that works to improve health in developing nations by helping people obtain drugs and improve their living conditions. He's done a ton of social and ethnographic work in different places but has done a lot in Haiti. He's also received a MacArthur Genius grant, is a continuing lecturer at Harvard, graduated from the top of his class at Harvard while still doing social work in Haiti and returning home only for lab practicals and exams, and has a list of other accomplishments as long as a very long-armed person's arm. I imagine it would be difficult to live with him, because he is an extremely driven, intelligent and charming person who has accomplished a great deal and clearly expects a great deal of himself and others. He's a fascinating person who has done a great deal to further the cause of human health, though.
3. I learned that my classmates apparently do not understand the irony of handing out Haitian-style cake and hot chocolate during a video about how much it sucks to be in Haiti right now.
And that's all. It wasn't a terribly learning-packed day, but hopefully this assignment will help me focus on things other than getting through class and getting through work. We'll see how it goes.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
People are CRAZY
How anybody can consider going anywhere the day after Thanksgiving is something I really cannot comprehend. I can barely move; the only reason I'm leaving the house is because my elderly and arthritic cat has claw problems and has to go to the vet.
The aforementioned cat, Princess Amanda; she is some five years my junior and far more crotchety.
I'm not sure why I like the Thanksgiving holiday. I reject pretty much every bit of its mythology; it has a disturbing and shameful history, which I've been aware of for a pretty long time because I never went to a public elementary school and thus got out of the annual lie-fest. My family tends to have one conversation every year about how disturbing the friendly-Pilgrim-Indian myth is and then just not discuss it for the rest of the day.
We also tend to largely ignore the whole thanksgiving aspect, which sounds a bit stupid since the day is called Thanksgiving. However, it just isn't something I buy into. I dislike being forced to thank anyone for anything, and I happen to think that gratitude is a bit pointless without a target. I try to be thankful every day to the people who matter for the things that matter. The rest is circumstance, skill, or luck, and thankfulness seems awfully disingenuous in connection with those things.
I suppose I am thankful for these things: That my family has more than sufficient food, that we are all healthy and close enough together to gather and eat together several times a year, and that we have someplace to go. Not every family this year has those things or opportunities. My uncle told us at dinner about his neighbor's experience; this year, she went out to do some last-minute shopping and ran into a homeless woman and her two children. They had noplace to go; all the shelters are full. My uncle's friend took them home with her and made them dinner. If anything, I'm grateful that there are people in the world that are still trusting and generous enough to do that; it gives me more hope than anything else for this country. Most people are still fundamentally pretty decent; we all want essentially the same things and when we stop to think about it, we realize that and try to be decent to each other. It's what makes life worth living. The nice thing about Thanksgiving is that it is one of those times of year when people feel compelled to stop and think about it, realize what they have, realize that everyone really wants the same things, and stop acting like dicks long enough to be kind to each other.
Maybe if these culturally mandated expressions of generosity didn't exist, we'd be forced to behave ourselves more often on our own. That's one of the nice things about atheism - it frees you up to do just that without a religious calendar telling you when to be a decent human being. In the meantime, I suppose I'll take what I can get, but I have to say I love it when my family doesn't say grace. When you've spent an entire day preparing food, it's a bit infuriating to wait two minutes while everybody folds their hands and pretends that some higher power, as opposed to you, is responsible for it.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Intellectual debate
So basically, I'm trying to hash out a pretty basic question: Should a professor - any professor - be allowed to express personal opinions in a very public forum, regardless of what those views may be?
The reason I'm questioning it is a blog post by a professor at Purdue which purports to present economic reasons why homosexuality is bad. The full post is here, but the shortened version goes something like this: Biblical values, AIDS, prison rape, domestic partner benefits don't reward straight people enough, it's too expensive for the companies. Personally, I think he loses all credibility when he refers to "sodomite degeneracy," but whatever.
The real question is, should he be allowed to express these blatantly anti-gay (and homophobic) views on a blog? It's a pretty public forum.
He doesn't publicly identify himself as a Purdue professor, and I tend to believe that affiliating oneself with an institution does not require you to give up personal opinions. For example, I work for a newspaper, and I still have this blog. We're required by a code of conduct not to affiliate ourselves with student advocating bodies (Purdue Student Government, for example), not to appear as an affiliate at events (for example, one of the "tea party" protests), and not to appear in photos or promotional materials for campus organizations. Basically, we can't make it look in any way as if the paper takes a stance on a certain issue, and as employees, if our presence can be construed as support, we are required not to be present. However, I can still have this blog and I can still express personal opinions, mostly because the things I have opinions on have little or nothing to do with the issues we're covering at the moment. Also, let's face it: Nobody really cares enough about what I think to go "Does that reporter have a blog" and then go try to find it. And the first result for a Google search using the information on the blog does not link back to my job.
This is not the case for Mr. Chapman, the professor in question. It's really easy to find out that he's a Purdue affiliate. A Google search for "Bert Chapman" returns his Purdue profile and a Purdue government documents staff page as the first two results. His blog is named "Conservative Librarian," meaning that those first two Google results, for a professor of library science, can easily be tied to him. If I was a gay student in one of his classes, I would be feeling pretty threatened right now. He uses some hateful language on that blog; "encroaching threat of homosexuality and other aberrant forms of sexual expression," "sodomite degeneracy," and "morally aberrant sexual behavior" all make appearances in the first two paragraphs of the post linked above. None of those statements have anything to do with the economic arguments he claims to be focusing on. Additionally, his misinformation about AIDS - detailed in a comment by an IU student - is disturbing evidence of poor scholarship on his part. If I were a Purdue administrator, I'd be kind of worried about this guy's ability to do his job as a social scientist. Objectivity is clearly not in his nature.
I think the best test is this: Would you express those opinions in a classroom? Is publishing something equivalent to appearing at an event protesting for or against that issue? I admit that the standards for affiliation have been somewhat relaxed for professors, who are notoriously opinionated. I'm starting to understand what conservative students feel when a professor says in class that he or she is a Democrat, or pro-Barack Obama, or even in favor of universal health care. For that reason, I think that professors with personal blogs must make an effort to either tone down views that might 'other' students - for example, they shouldn't refer to homosexuality as "sodomite degeneracy" - or they should go to great lengths to hide their university affiliation unless it somehow bolsters credibility.
This particular example is a toughie, and I admit that I'm having trouble balancing my personal distaste for the man's position and my love of free speech. On the whole, I think the free speech has to win out. However, the fact that the man has power over the academic careers of the people he's bashing in this post - and who he clearly has a very personal distaste for - has to affect the issue too. If he rewrote the post, removing some of the more religion-oriented language, focusing on the aspects of the issue that he claims to be focusing on and adding a disclaimer that his views do not represent those of the university, I wouldn't find it especially controversial - on that front, at any rate. Believing that AIDS is "the gay plague" is still pretty misguided.
The reason I'm questioning it is a blog post by a professor at Purdue which purports to present economic reasons why homosexuality is bad. The full post is here, but the shortened version goes something like this: Biblical values, AIDS, prison rape, domestic partner benefits don't reward straight people enough, it's too expensive for the companies. Personally, I think he loses all credibility when he refers to "sodomite degeneracy," but whatever.
The real question is, should he be allowed to express these blatantly anti-gay (and homophobic) views on a blog? It's a pretty public forum.
He doesn't publicly identify himself as a Purdue professor, and I tend to believe that affiliating oneself with an institution does not require you to give up personal opinions. For example, I work for a newspaper, and I still have this blog. We're required by a code of conduct not to affiliate ourselves with student advocating bodies (Purdue Student Government, for example), not to appear as an affiliate at events (for example, one of the "tea party" protests), and not to appear in photos or promotional materials for campus organizations. Basically, we can't make it look in any way as if the paper takes a stance on a certain issue, and as employees, if our presence can be construed as support, we are required not to be present. However, I can still have this blog and I can still express personal opinions, mostly because the things I have opinions on have little or nothing to do with the issues we're covering at the moment. Also, let's face it: Nobody really cares enough about what I think to go "Does that reporter have a blog" and then go try to find it. And the first result for a Google search using the information on the blog does not link back to my job.
This is not the case for Mr. Chapman, the professor in question. It's really easy to find out that he's a Purdue affiliate. A Google search for "Bert Chapman" returns his Purdue profile and a Purdue government documents staff page as the first two results. His blog is named "Conservative Librarian," meaning that those first two Google results, for a professor of library science, can easily be tied to him. If I was a gay student in one of his classes, I would be feeling pretty threatened right now. He uses some hateful language on that blog; "encroaching threat of homosexuality and other aberrant forms of sexual expression," "sodomite degeneracy," and "morally aberrant sexual behavior" all make appearances in the first two paragraphs of the post linked above. None of those statements have anything to do with the economic arguments he claims to be focusing on. Additionally, his misinformation about AIDS - detailed in a comment by an IU student - is disturbing evidence of poor scholarship on his part. If I were a Purdue administrator, I'd be kind of worried about this guy's ability to do his job as a social scientist. Objectivity is clearly not in his nature.
I think the best test is this: Would you express those opinions in a classroom? Is publishing something equivalent to appearing at an event protesting for or against that issue? I admit that the standards for affiliation have been somewhat relaxed for professors, who are notoriously opinionated. I'm starting to understand what conservative students feel when a professor says in class that he or she is a Democrat, or pro-Barack Obama, or even in favor of universal health care. For that reason, I think that professors with personal blogs must make an effort to either tone down views that might 'other' students - for example, they shouldn't refer to homosexuality as "sodomite degeneracy" - or they should go to great lengths to hide their university affiliation unless it somehow bolsters credibility.
This particular example is a toughie, and I admit that I'm having trouble balancing my personal distaste for the man's position and my love of free speech. On the whole, I think the free speech has to win out. However, the fact that the man has power over the academic careers of the people he's bashing in this post - and who he clearly has a very personal distaste for - has to affect the issue too. If he rewrote the post, removing some of the more religion-oriented language, focusing on the aspects of the issue that he claims to be focusing on and adding a disclaimer that his views do not represent those of the university, I wouldn't find it especially controversial - on that front, at any rate. Believing that AIDS is "the gay plague" is still pretty misguided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)