Netroots Nation

If you're there next year, I'll try to make it.

Hey PZ do you have any more of the slideshows you use in class. I really liked the biochemical pathways and
"reducible complexity" one you had.

I had the privilege of meeting Ed last night, and you were quite the topic of conversation. I certainly enjoyed meeting Ed and if he is the 'typical' scienceblogger, I can't wait to meet more

Totally and utterly OT but our local university's public access channel has started showing www.researchchannel.org feeds.

This one in particular really blew me away.

From the Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/629o38

DIVINE IMPULSES
Astrology's Role in Religion
Caroline Casey: Sally Quinn talks to the astrologer about "the burden of scientific rationalism"

I can't stand it...someone else watch it and tell me how horrible it is.

Totally screwed up that first link.
Try again

@5
Gah! I only made it about 2 minutes into that... thing. Astrology is a really weird derelict belief, I'm almost at a loss as to how people that aren't wearing rags and shouting from a street corner can believe this stuff. But then I start looking at my notes for my North American Christianity class.

@5

I made it all the way through (just barely) that video. The astrologer babbles on about how Isaac Newton was not only a great scientist, but a great mystic. As if that somehow made alchemy and astrology "TRUE SCIENCE!!!11!"...

Oh, and my favorite bit: Obama's campaign is the most mythic (?) presidential campaign ever, save for perhaps the founding fathers'. Who were all astrologers apparently (here, the interviewer helpfully chimes in with a matter of fact "of course.").

She then wrapped it up by talking about how scientists she met, while doing a water blessing, were so relieved to grasp onto the metaphysical and be freed from "simplistic rationalism." I guess scientists just want to play pretend sometimes. Granted one physicist who features prominently in her story is a cold fusion researcher, so I think he was already fairly out of it.

Needless to say, it was painful to watch.

This is very off topic, and I'm an infrequent commenter here, but this statement by Thomas Foley really struck a nerve with me:

Foley explained that he thought Myers should not be able to incite such acts with "impunity," saying that he was especially disturbed by the comments posted on Myers' blog. He said it was "eye-opening" to read the people who supported Myers' action. Even at his age of 63, Foley said, he had never "personally encountered such bigotry."

Thomas Foley was born in either 1944 or 45. That means he was 9 or 10 when Brown Vs. Board of Education was decided. He was 19 or 20 when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Congress. So, he was alive when Jim Crow still reigned in the south.

If he was born and raised in Virginia, he was 14 or 15 when Prince Edward County, VA closed down its entire public school system rather than comply with the order to desegregate. This lasted until 1964, when Foley was in his 20's.

The most violent episode of the civil rights movement in Virginia occurred in Danville during the summer of 1963, at the same time that the nation was transfixed by the televised images of T. Eugene "Bull" Connor turning dogs and high-pressure hoses against demonstrators in Birmingham, Alabama. There 3,300 persons were arrested. In Danville the number was about 600.

Danville was a tobacco and textile town of about 50,000 residents, a third of whom were black. On May 31, representatives of a broad cross-section of the black community met under the auspices of the Danville Christian Progressive Association. The assembly then marched in a body to the municipal building. Like their counterparts in Birmingham, the protesters in Danville pressed for desegregated facilities, equal employment opportunities, representation in city government, and creation of a biracial commission to monitor racial progress.

Not only did the city resist the so-called Movement's demands, but in a coordinated fashion every instrument of power was used to create an atmosphere of intimidation, including seeking injunctions under a pre-Civil War "John Brown" statute against "any person conspiring to incite the colored population to insurrection."

On June 10, sixty high school students marched to the municipal building. The leaders were arrested. The others fled and were chased into a blind alley where high-pressure hoses were turned on them. Many were knocked down and some had their clothes blown off. Using nightsticks on helpless students, police officers arrested them and hauled them off to jail. Students were allowed to call their parents, who upon arrival were arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Demonstrations continued through the summer of 1963, although national attention soon was turned to the March on Washington and, a few weeks later, to the killing of four little girls in the bombing of Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.

http://www.vahistorical.org/civilrights/danville.htm

Thomas Foley was nearly an adult when this was going on. Yet he says he never "personally encountered such bigotry" as what he saw on this website. Perhaps he was in a coma at the time.

And, of course, Foley somehow missed this one as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

commie atheist at #10 said:

"Thomas Foley was nearly an adult when this was going on. Yet he says he never "personally encountered such bigotry" as what he saw on this website. Perhaps he was in a coma at the time."

It's entirely within the realm of reason that he is telling the truth. I haved lived in South Carolina since 1963 and I have never witnessed a racial incident. I am not sure where you are from, but I'd be willing to bet that at some time or other that has been a racial incident. Would you be lying if you said you didn't witness the event? The Klan has had quite a few members in midwestern states for years. There was an "incident" in Iowa some years ago. My best friend, from Des Moines, has never seen, heard of or witnessed a racial incident of any kind, but they have happened. Is he a liar also?

I think what commie atheist meant was that Foley must have been at least aware that all of this was going on, and presumably would have recognized it as bigotry at the time. Even if he only read about these things after the fact, it's completely unreasonable for him to then claim that the comments on this blog are worse than any of that.

There's always Netroots Nation in Second Life if you can't be there in person!

Sean Willis at #12:

"I think what commie atheist meant was that Foley must have been at least aware that all of this was going on, and presumably would have recognized it as bigotry at the time."

One can be "aware" of something without having "encountered" it. I am "aware" of the Orangeburg Massacre" that took place in my home state of SC in 1968, however, I never "encountered" it or any similar event. When most people use the word "encounter? generally speaking, they are talking about an event they have personally witnessed; at least as I understand the word.

"Even if he only read about these things after the fact, it's completely unreasonable for him to then claim that the comments on this blog are worse than any of that."

This is complete speculation. Has Mr. Foley claimed the comments on this blog were worse than the aforementioned racial incidents? To my knowledge, he hasn't. The comments on this blog stand on their own merits. Look at some of the comments that were posted about the death of Jesse Helms. Would you defend those? I must admit, that I have never personally "encountered" such comments other than on the internet.

First, Foley has claimed *none* of what you are saying

"Needless to say, it was painful to watch."

Posted by: spgreenlaw

spgreenlaw, you are amazing. I can't imagine sitting through the whole thing on behalf of a stranger on the internet. I think it would be the Sally Quinn bland agreement with insanity that would be particularly hard to bear...

Thank you, thank you!

I'm old enough to have encountered separate bathrooms and drinking fountains for "white" and "colored" in Virginia. It says something about Foley that he claims never to have encountered such bigotry, namely that he didn't much mind that sort of thing.

Discrimination against black people: business as usual. Disdain of religion: horrible!

a) The physicist George Gamow, as a kid, took home a consecrated wafer and put it under his microscope: no meat. Faith lost.

2) At my Catholic grandmother's funeral mass, the priest prevented one of my nephews from taking communion, so my mother, a long-lapsed Lutheran, went down to the altar rail in defiance and ate the sacred cracker.

III) There is, however, no point in a scientific investigation of the wafer; longstanding doctrine holds that the "accidents", which is to say the physical characteristics of the cracker, are not changed by the ritual, only its "substance", a mystical concept. So, what sort of instrument could be used to determine whether this matzo has a soul?

(Sure, a little salsa and guacamole would ... no? you'd prefer hummus? no, not applesauce, that's just ... catsup? I don't even want to know you).

½) Myers is standing up to a bully. Donohue got Amanda Marcotte bounced out of a job with the Edwards campaign. He gets people fired. PZ's got a backbone (people, we're vertebrates) and he's standing up against this hatemonger. How is this a bad thing?

I think that an "Academic Freedom" is an essential part of what the Netroots in all of our variety needs to have as a normative goal. Do you know any particular reason(s) why your panel was not admitted? I realize that their isn't time for everything, just wondering if it was somthing else.

I get a kick out of this blog!

But why do they call it a "science" blog?

I'd love to see PZ and Michael Berube in the same room! But i think PZ should be a bit more circumspect. Anyone here remembers the Chris Clarke Show Trials?

And Eddie, you may want to check the "A Taste of Pharyngula" section on the left hand side of the blog...

gleaner63 #14

One can be "aware" of something without having "encountered" it. I am "aware" of the Orangeburg Massacre" that took place in my home state of SC in 1968, however, I never "encountered" it or any similar event. When most people use the word "encounter? generally speaking, they are talking about an event they have personally witnessed; at least as I understand the word.

The problem with this argument is that Foley hasn't encountered bigotry here either. Bill Donohue told him about the incident. So your defense of Foley fails.

It would have been great, though -- a group of us, including me and Michael Bérubé, had a proposed session on academic freedom/"academic bill of rights" that got turned down. If you're there, tell the organizers to bring us on next year!

For Michael to do a panel, wouldn't he, you know, need to elevate his dangerality and restart his blog? *fingers crossed*

Look at some of the comments that were posted about the death of Jesse Helms. Would you defend those?

Seeing as how I made several of them, hell yes.

But, I suppose, you're one of those, "I didn't agree with his ideas, but he seems like a perfectly nice man" type of idiots we've encountered over the welcome death of that vile monster.

This is an election year. They were flooded with applications for panels, and they had to cut somewhere.

It's fair. So far, academic freedom issues have not been a hot campaign topic -- they probably went with the subjects most people are talking about.

Off-topic: Is the old Pharyngula server still down? I tried to point someone to the thread wherein everyone was laughing at Ray Kurzweil's graphs, but the page won't load (and the Wayback Machine is being awfully slow today, too).

Sorry, this is off topic:

Does anyone know where I can upload a Word Document that I can link on my blog?

Vox Day wrote a post on his blog claiming I was commenting on a paragraph that was not in the pre-published Chapter I reviewed.

I'd like to upload the Chapter 8 he sent me and link it on my blog, so I can show people what I was really commenting on.

Highlights: Al Gore was the special guest at the "Ask the Speaker" event here at the Netroots Nations Conference.

There were only a few science related programs. Next year, I hope we can get more representation at the Netroots Conference.

Ed Brayton's presentation was very funny, through...

I plan to encourage the skeptical, free-thought, secular, agnostic, atheist, communities to show up next year.

"But, I suppose, you're one of those, "I didn't agree with his ideas, but he seems like a perfectly nice man" type of idiots we've encountered over the welcome death of that vile monster."

Nope. I agreed with some of his ideas. The point was that very few of the "regulars" on this site have any wiggle room when it comes to bigotry or horrible comments.

MAJeff OM at #22,

What "ideas" exactly are you talking about that made Helms such a "vile monster"?
One of the "ideas" of Jesse Helms I agreed with was that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to "...keep and bear arms...". I take it you would disagree with this? How about the idea of a strong military?

I wrote:

Does anyone know where I can upload a Word Document that I can link on my blog?

Never mind.
I just got threatened with lawyers for doing it.

My post is gone. I don't want to deal with that shit.

What "ideas" exactly are you talking about that made Helms such a "vile monster"?

AIDS. Segregation. Apartheid. Enough for you?

MAJeff at #30:

Helms was also pro-life. In the view of some, people who hold the opposite position are in fact the real monsters. Also, what did Helms have to do with AIDS? I'm aware that Nina Totenberg said something about she wished Helms or some of his kin death because of it but that's about it. On segregation he was obviously wrong, as were a lot of folks. I'm not aware that Helm's could have had any impact on Apartheid. By the way, Helms was anti-communist. Do you think maybe that was a good position to hold in the Cold War? Like most, Helms got some things right and some things very wrong. Just an opinion.

Also, what did Helms have to do with AIDS?

*jawdrop*

MAJeff, more of a headdesk than a jawdrop, I think. gleaner63, you are kidding, yes? You truly think Helms was just a some things right and some things very wrong kinda guy?

MAJeff, more of a headdesk than a jawdrop, I think

I think it's more of, "Faggot lives have never really mattered, and faggot deaths less so." Similar to Helms, except that he saw those deaths he fostered as worthy of celebration.

MAJeff, as you no doubt know, those who do not know history are condemned to post about. (smile)

Ciao Brother

MAJeff at #34:

"I think it's more of, "Faggot lives have never really mattered, and faggot deaths less so." Similar to Helms, except that he saw those deaths he fostered as worthy of celebration."

Not quite a record for the time bewteen posts and the first insult. I was aware that it had something to do with the funding of the AIDS and Helms has made public apologies for that. I fact, he said he was "ashamed" of his actions. Your others comments, even for this site, are about as off the wall as possible.

You'd be wrong. He "came around" on AIDS in Africa--because those people were "innocent."

He never "apologized" for anything with regard to gay folks. Our lives were literally worthless, and he and the movement he was a part of reveled in that. Many have never apologized, but only decided it was worthy of consideration when people other than gay men got sick.

"MAJeff, more of a headdesk than a jawdrop, I think. gleaner63, you are kidding, yes? You truly think Helms was just a some things right and some things very wrong kinda guy?"

Between our posts, there were about six positions Helms took on various issues. I've answered and agreed that in some cases he got it right and some cases *very* wrong. Is that good enough for you? So, Helms, like anyone else, cannot be defined by his admittedly poor judgement on a single issue. That's fair don't you think? On his other poistions, like the right to keep and bear arms, in which he was also known to be a hawk, do you agree or not agree with his stance on that particular issue?

gleaner63, I know that Helms apologized for blocking AIDS research, a little late and as he was leaving Congress, but I do not recall any apologies for being a homophobe, an avowed sexist, and a racist who believed integration was pushed to fast and opposed civil rights and affirmative action legislation. Helms was a vile man, I am glad he is dead and sorry it took so long.

MAJeff,

"He never "apologized" for anything with regard to gay folks. Our lives were literally worthless, and he and the movement he was a part of reveled in that. Many have never apologized, but only decided it was worthy of consideration when people other than gay men got sick."

Jeff, I've known two people who have suffered and died from AIDS, one was the son of my Aunt, one of them the brother of a co-worker. So in no way could I hold that anyone's life is worthless. That is not a Christian position and I will admit that a lot of Christians have missed the boat on that. *I am not one of them so you should retract your statement about people celecrating the death of gay folks. I also believe that life is valuable in the womb, and that those "people" are not worthless either. Someone mentioned that I didn't know history, but in fact I know enough about people in history to understand that people are often *horribly* wrong about things, and only realize that later in life. I didn't mean to offend you.

gleaner63, no, I do not agree with Helms' position on much of anything. I support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and I own and keep firearms. What on earth does that have to do with Helms? Lots of people support keeping firearms legal and available, you do not have to be a vile and hateful scumbag like Helms to hold that position. He was not wrong on a single issue, he was wrong on many of them. Bad does outweigh good and I think he was defined by his choices: racism, sexism, homophobia, hatred of the different.

My impression is that you only wish to be contrary. I hope that is true.

Pox Nabisco

"gleaner63, I know that Helms apologized for blocking AIDS research, a little late and as he was leaving Congress, but I do not recall any apologies for being a homophobe, an avowed sexist, and a racist who believed integration was pushed to fast and opposed civil rights and affirmative action legislation. Helms was a vile man, I am glad he is dead and sorry it took so long."

A lot of people have believed that intergration was "pushed to fast". Theodore Roosevelt has some comments on record in regard to that. Some even disagreed with the pace of emancipation, and thought that should have been more gradual. Someone else has raised the issue that if Helms was a big a racist as some suppose, he should support abortion on demand because, as far as I know, the majority of abortions are of african-americans. There was a recent article about this in the Wall Street Journal.

Also, what did Helms have to do with AIDS?
...
*jawdrop*

Jeff,

why are you arguing with someone who actually knows far less about Helms than what an average moron could find out in 5 minutes simply by pulling up the wiki on him?

seriously, you're arguing with a complete moron. Why not ask him how many deaths one might lay at the feet of Helms before he decided to fucking "apologize"?

It's not worth your time.

he should support abortion on demand because, as far as I know, the majority of abortions are of african-americans.

see?

complete moron, and not worth anyone's time.

gleaner63, this is kind of a waste. Your post at #42 just kind of takes my breath away. I am going to assume you are not one of those people who thought Emancipation was too quick, but I really see no reason to read your posts in the future.

Ciao

Ichthyic, thanks. Had already come to that conclusion, was writing while you posted, but thanks anyway. Just breath taking.

Oh, wrong Jeff. Crimson faced embarrassment. (grin)

"gleaner63, no, I do not agree with Helms' position on much of anything. I support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and I own and keep firearms. What on earth does that have to do with Helms? Lots of people support keeping firearms legal and available, you do not have to be a vile and hateful scumbag like Helms to hold that position. He was not wrong on a single issue, he was wrong on many of them. Bad does outweigh good and I think he was defined by his choices: racism, sexism, homophobia, hatred of the different. My impression is that you only wish to be contrary. I hope that is true."

I don't claim to understand all that you are saying here, but any political figure should be judged in their entirety, not by a single issue. I don't know anything about your politics, but would you judge Ted Kennedy based on the events surrounding Chappaquiddick? How about Robert Byrd, Democrat and former *leader* of a Ku Klux Klan outfit? How about Jesse Jackson's anti-semetic remarks? What I was trying to bring to the discussion was some balance. I also agree with the recent Supreme COurt's decision in Heller vs. DC; so, in that regard Helms was entirely correct (from our standpoint). Of course, I am well aware of human emotion. My father was a WWII veteran of 31 comabt missions over Nazi-occupied Europe. However, he thought the fire-bombing of Dresden and Hamburg was completely wrong. Anyway, no harm in disagreeing.

Jeff,

I have an undergraduate degree in history, okay? I used to teach history at the high school level. That means, among other things, that I read an awful lot. At the moment I am re-reading "Landscape Turned Red" by Steven W. Sears, about the battle of Antietam. If you read my post carefully, no where did I say I agreed with a slower approach to emancipation or intergration. I merely cited those references for context purposes. Does that seem clear now? I can't help what's on the record or what people have said; don't kill the messenger, okay? Also, don't listen to that fishy fellow about who or who isn't a moron here; basically in "ikky's world" it simply means *anybody I happen to disagree with*. I can assure you I am not a moron.

Jeff,

All I can do is sincerely apologise if I offended you. As an ex-teacher and because the study of history is my passion, sometimes I lapse into looking at things like they are mere "events" and forget that real people are involved. My ignorance and again I am *sorry*.