July 01, 2008
The First Let-Down
I read today that Barack Obama wants to expand President Bush's Faith Based Initiative. So, sure, there's a lot of fine print about how Obama's vision of the program is different than Bush's, but really, come on... how is the government supposed to regulate whether federal dollars are being used to proselytize? Should the government have to? And why do we say "faith-based" when we really mean Christian?
Now, I understand that churches do lots of good things, lots of volunteer work, and run lots of legitimate, beneficial charities. I just don't think it's right to be supporting that with federal tax dollars. I don't think the government should be supporting organizations that can hire and fire based on religious beliefs. You scream that my NPR shouldn't be funded by the government, well, I scream that your church soup kitchen shouldn't be funded by the government either. There, we're even.
Is Obama just pandering to Christian Conservatives to try to broaden his appeal for the general election? Does he really think this is a good idea? Because I, for one, have had enough of the government and radical religious elements being in bed together. Unfortunately, the choices here both seem bleak. Either Obama really believes this shit, or he's just playing politics, neither of one rates very high on my list of things to aspire to. I realize that I hold a minority opinion on religious belief, but even if I were religious, I can't see chipping away at the wall between Church and State being a good thing.
update
Here is a link to the Obama campaign website that includes a document outlining Obama's faith initiative. It sounds somewhat less sinister, in that it emphasizes support only for secular programs and includes secular, community based organizations BUT I think my criticism still holds-- how can you separate out proselytizing, especially when churches are ministering to very vulnerable people? And although the programs cannot discriminate according to current Civil Rights law, they can still discriminate in their hiring practices and, presumably, in providing services when it comes to gays and lesbians. Not that that isn't a problem in the secular sector, but it seems we often give a free pass to bigotry when it is religiously motivated.
Posted by mwashburn at 12:08 PM | Comments (2)
May 30, 2008
Complete Randomness
I heard a great quote this week. "You may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
If only things were that simple.
Things have been slow at work. I spend my days waiting for my Southwest Ding to go off. I'm looking for cheap plane tickets for late summer. Not to Tulsa, unfortunately.
Posted by mwashburn at 10:01 AM | Comments (0)
February 07, 2008
Wish I'd thought of this First
More actual content of my own coming soon. In the meantime I just couldn't resist sharing this.
Dueling Billboards
Add to My Profile | More Videos
Posted by mwashburn at 09:49 AM | Comments (1)
February 04, 2008
Why the Media Ought to Keep their Noses Out of Scientific Journals
Here's a great example of how the media manage to distort and draw misleading conclusions from scientific studies:
Now, I think it is probably reasonable, and certainly won't cause any harm, to NOT use these products on your baby. But that, in my mind, ought to be the main message here. You don't need to scrub and sanitize your baby with the latest from Johnson & Johnson. Kids don't need special hand soap.
Instead, the news piece sets off alarm bells for already terrified parents by jumping to conclusions that are not in the study. I also think it's asinine that someone can't find the time to do some sort of conclusive study somewhere to sort this out, but in the meantime saying "phthalates cause reproductive problems in lab animals" + "we don't know if they do the same in humans" + "we don't know if they are in these baby products or not" + "we don't know if the infants in the study were exposed to phthalates in the products used on them" equals a whole lot of nothing. What are other environmental sources of exposure? And what infant hasn't "recently" been exposed to baby shampoo, lotion, powder, etc.? (well, mine, but we're weirdos).
Unfortunately, here's a case where both science and skepticism fail us. There are numerous compounds (including chocolate, onions, and grape skins) that we know are extremely harmful to certain animals, but are harmless or good for humans in the quantities we normally consume them. So animal studies aren't always a good indicator. On the other hand we have powerful pharmaceutical companies who are heavily financially and politically invested in the status quo, so it's hard to know if consumers are getting accurate information about what's in their cosmetics, let alone any possible harmful effects.
What am I getting at here? I wish the news media wouldn't construct something out of inconclusive preliminary studies, and wouldn't make leading statements that cause people to draw conclusions that aren't there (the phrase "correlation is not causation" seems lost on most people). But I also wish we had some better research going on as to the real effects of some of the chemical soup we live in on a daily basis. And I wish we could start collectively realizing that our obsession with having everything smell like a daisy all the time may very well come with some unpleasant side effects. I just feel frustrated as a consumer, but unwilling as a skeptic to go "bah, nothing wrong here." I'm one to talk, as I can't seem to give up my tinted sunscreen or my black eyeliner, but I also seem to draw some line in my mind as to what risks I'm willing to take for myself vs those I'm willing to inflict on my progeny.
That desert island life is looking better and better all the time. Better start compiling my ipod songlists...
Posted by mwashburn at 12:53 PM | Comments (2)
January 31, 2008
Skeptics Ahoy!
So, I've been a bad blogger of late. And I'm going to continue being a bad blogger by doing nothing more today than posting some links. I've been spending a lot of time over at the Skepchick blog and enjoying the information and the virtual company. As they've reported there, the 79th Skeptic's Circle is up, and The Amaz!ng Meeting just ended in Florida (for those of you who don't know, this is a really incredible-sounding semi-annual Skeptics' conference of sort spearheaded by James Randi.)
This whole atheist/skeptic community thing has become a bigger and bigger interest of mine over the last couple of years, and though I don't blog about it too much, it is something I'm starting to feel more passionate about and hope to devote more of my time to in the future. And a few of these people are also knitters, which just kind of sealed the deal for me. Seriously.
Posted by mwashburn at 09:17 PM | Comments (3)
January 03, 2008
Yet More Randomness!
I thought I would have more profound thoughts going into the new year, but instead I've hit the ground running and have my brain thoroughly immersed in artistic ventures. My first order of business is to get my shit together for the Union Street Gallery juried show deadline coming up.
Second, I wanted to mention a local artist I've had the opportunity to meet lately. He's actually a law student, but has suddenly found a lot of success with his artwork, which is really fantastic. I bring you Justin Vining. And he's just as excited about the Edward Hopper exhibition at the Art Institute as I am. I may wait until March to go, so I can see the Ed Ruscha show at the same time.
In other news, Skepchick posted a great link yesterday about why atheists are so angry and I found myself agreeing with every word of it. I'm still really struggling to decide what I think about the New Atheist movement, and really enjoyed this article in last month's Harper's, which talks about the difference between Secularism and Secularization and why Secular Humanism owes such a debt to the culture of Christianity. I still can't get past my feeling that any non-theist movement is doomed to fail if it sets itself up as an intellectual movement, which I think a lot of great atheist thinkers are unwittingly doing. But any time you have people who are (and yes, we are) oppressed, the first step of "coming out" is bound to have to do with announcing your presence and fighting for your identity (and being righteously angry). I'm not sure, however, that demanding the end of religion is a feasible strategy at this point. But anyway, read Greta Christina's post.
I apologize for the lack of Christmas Vacation content. I was hoping Adam would cover our Tucson road trip, and this weekend I swear I'll get the Lilybug site updated with some new photos. We actually don't HAVE all the photos yet, as I'm awaiting a CD full from Nana and Papa.
Posted by mwashburn at 07:01 AM | Comments (1)
December 09, 2007
Weekend Randomness
The Family
We're entertaining the stomach flu this weekend, in a bout of vomiting that seems to be an annual pre-holiday event. All I can say is that I'm glad the Bug waited until after the holiday open house at the new Dean's house to hurl the entire contents of her stomach across the room.
Knitting
Finally got my Ravelry invite! I'm foureyedflygrrl there, so if you're on, look me up.
Reading
I finally started reading The Golden Compass. I would have LOVED this book when I was younger. I mean, I am really enjoying it now, but at the time in my life when I was fantasy-prone and extremely into that sort of fiction it would have really engrossed me. I can't figure out why I had never heard of it. In any case, it's actually quite complicated and dense for a book aimed at children. And however they may have softened up the movie, the book is quite clear in its anti-religion stance, using words like "papacy" and so forth, so the connotations of the Catholic church are there. What I can't figure out is why groups like the Catholic League want to actually ban such books/movies. You'd think that a strong, meaningful, legitimate worldview would stand up to scrutiny and invite examination of counter argument. Oh, wait a minute...
Which leads me to my next item. Trying to make up my mind about throwing myself behind The OUT Campaign. Suddenly finding myself among tons of other non-theists, skeptics, etc. online has made me really examine my own unbelief and what it means in a larger sense. I see a big movement towards "coming out," which I think is important for atheists for a number of reasons, but at the same time I want to avoid the trap of setting up yet another faction, especially one based on supposed intellectual superiority. I think that the point I always want to make in outing myself as an atheist is my similarities to everyone else, not my differences. I think that showing myself to be a loving, caring, concerned, ethical, civic-minded person who is also an atheist does more for acceptance and understanding of atheism than doing the whole elitism thing. But by the same token I think not enough atheists are out, speaking out about the misrepresentation of atheism in the media, combating all the misconceptions out there, and so on. People like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris have been doing a HUGE part of this work by writing books and being so available to the media this past year, but it's not enough. In any case, I will probably be posting more about this as I sit around and continue to think through it all.
Posted by mwashburn at 03:35 PM | Comments (0)
November 20, 2007
What's Wrong with Oprah
Notice that's not a question. Sure, Oprah Winfrey is a great American success story. Sure, she uses a lot of her money for good. And maybe it's unfair to blame her for the taste and sensibility of American women, but I really think she is no longer simply a product and can now be considered a major influencer. I saw this morning that she is hosting her annual "Favorite Things" episode this week, wherein a studio full of fans scream for an hour straight while Oprah lobs iPods and perfume at their heads. Great. 'Cause the season is all about consumerism. No, what really irks me is Oprah Winfrey's promotion of every psychic fraud and self-help vulture out there, with nary a critical eye.
I watched the episode where she had con artist John Edward on. There was one woman in the audience who raised her hand and said "I'm a scientist, and very skeptical of this kind of thing." They made her look like the one curmudgeonly freak in the audience. Then there's her promotion of Rhonda Byrne and her book The Secret. Quantum mechanics indeed. Women already disproportionately believe in this crap, and Oprah's completely uncritical presentation and promotion lends credibility and connects these people with a much wider pool of people to prey on. I'm all for leading a positive life, self-improvement, and so on, but the Self-Help culture that thrives on women's victimhood does no one any good.
As women, I think it's important that we not turn our backs on things like emotion, interconnectedness, and caring, but why does that necessarily include irrational belief and acceptance of the superstitious and supernatural with no critical inquiry? We need a TV show on the scale of Oprah that can entertain but also put a stop to the Marketing Machine that is Self-Help (and here I separate actual psychology and therapeutic psychiatry from hare-brained theories to sell a book) and Psychic Bullshit. I should put Homeopathy in that basket as well, but it's a topic for a whole separate post. Science has repeatedly debunked this stuff, yet somehow that isn't being broadcast to the general public, because it's just not exciting front-page news. I absolutely love James Randi, and find him very entertaining, but perhaps from a marketing standpoint we need a perky, 30-something female version to reach the audience I'm talking about. How do we convince the marketing people it's a sell? I don't know.
Posted by mwashburn at 06:41 AM | Comments (5)