Do Something

The Day I Learned What Courage Was

tqa — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:55:44 +0000

The Day I Learned What Courage Was

On June 5th, 1989, the world got to see exactly what courage is. One man, in a white shirt and dark pants, carrying shopping bags, faced down a company of tanks. The whole world saw the images of his simple courage. His name and his fate remain a mystery - all that is known about his entire life is what he did for a few brief minutes on one terrible day.

A Facebook page has been created to celebrate the legacy of the Tank Man. Please take a few minutes to help demonstrate how important those moments were by becoming a fan.

tqa Thu, 06/04/2009 - 07:55

Tags

Do Something

Tank Man lives. Updates of this iconic image are all over the Web today. Here, for example:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/20th-anniversary-of-tian…

I wonder how many other individuals have gotten mowed down throughout history, though, doing this sort of thing. Because they all matter too.

The memory of them may have been what helped this event go as (relatively) well as it did for this guy.

You haven't seen them before because giants were standing on their shoulders.

There is a stunning newly-published picture of Tank Man at the NY Times "Lens Blog".

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/behind-the-scenes-a-new-angle-…

From street level, before the more iconic shots (all from hotel balconies, iirc). Makes me shiver to look at it.

At this very moment I am watching the 2006 Frontline episode titled "The Tankman" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/

It goes beyond the Tankman incident to the whole Tiananmen Square revolt and to the results of the economic trade off that the Chinese government made with the populace.

I remember the day before the Tiananmen Square massacre. A couple of the women at work were talking about how wonderful it was that the demonstrators had defied an ultimatum from the government and weren't going to back down. And I thought, "They've signed their own death warrants." A government of a billion people would not dare to let one group defy them for fear of losing control. So the next day I was appalled but not surprised.

If he was really brave, wouldn't he have stayed in front of the tank instead of letting himself get herded away?

I always felt this guy epitomized the fight for liberty and human rights. As they were predominantly college students intellectual rights and abilities rising above the oppressive faceless mass of communism also came to mind. I have to admit I was ultimately disappointed. They lost their fight largely. I was serving as a Navy corpsman at the time. We certainly don't/didn't need a war with China but I was amazed we'd get involved in a convoluted middle eastern fracas fighting for unbelievably wealthy families while leaving these students and Iraqi Kurds to hang. Clearly, in international relations finance trumps basic human rights and intellectual idealism.

The election is over. It's time to work. Let's start by focusing on the Kennedy/EPA thing.

tqa — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:21:16 +0000

The election is over. It's time to work. Let's start by focusing on the Kennedy/EPA thing.

It's been almost 36 hours since the networks called the election for Obama. That's enough of a honeymoon. There's work to be done.

There are widespread reports that President-elect Obama is seriously considering appointing Robert Kennedy Jr. as head of the EPA. The appointment does seem to have some benefits - including, as Politico points out, some political ones for Obama - but Orac is right. It's a bad idea.

Kennedy's active participation in the anti-vaccination movement is a threat to public health. It also demonstrates, quite clearly, that he is willing to actively promote positions in the face of clear and convincing scientific evidence that those positions are wrong. I think most of us can agree that those are not traits that we'd like to see in the person responsible for running a US Government scientific agency.

The politicization of science is bad no matter who does it. It wasn't just bad when the Republicans were involved. It will be just as bad if it's a Democrat doing it.

I suspect that we'll see other articles on other blogs discussing this appointment, particularly if an announcement is made in the next week or two. But if there's one thing we really should have learned from this election, it's this: words alone don't get the job done.

They're certainly not going to get the job done if we just talk among ourselves. If we want to effectively oppose this nomination, we need to bring in the entire scientific community. And we need to do it now. If the appointment is announced, it's a done deal. There aren't a lot of Democrats out there who are going to want to hand Obama an embarrassing public defeat on a high profile nomination right out the bat, and that number takes a dramatic drop when doing so would also involve simultaneously pissing off the Kennedys and Clintons.

So if you want to work to try and head off this potential problem, I'd suggest starting soon. One thing that might help is if you bring the issue to the attention of three or four people you know who would be interested in this, but who don't read blogs. Have them bring in more of their friends.

Try to get them to get in touch with anyone they know who is involved in one of the major scientific organizations, or who is an editor for a major publication, or has political contacts. Let's try to get those folks to put out the word that a Kennedy appointment to the EPA will cause problems down the road.

tqa Thu, 11/06/2008 - 03:21

Tags

Do Something

I think Kennedy is a sure thing. He's a prominent Dem who is well known to the public for his interest in science (sure, he gets it 100% wrong, but he's interested in it). And the HuffPo/KOS worlds love him and have zero interest in scientific accuracy as long as the person is supporting their ideological agenda. This is why I'm not a Democrat, because they are just as committed to forcing their religious views on the public as the Republicans are. The Dems just have a broader range of religious views.

Why don't you try to coordinate something across scienceblogs.com to get your readers to write in to news stations the way you guys sometimes crash polls? At the very least Fox News should be happy to run with it.

This letter was first published in the Putnam County News and Recorder, Cold Spring, New York, on August 30, 2000 and they have carried it on their website ever since for which they have my thanks. (AHS, 2008)

Letters:

Supports Former Riverkeeper Board Members' Action
Editor,

The Fishkill Ridge Caretakers, Inc. supports Robert H. Boyle, former president of the Riverkeeper, Inc. and former Riverkeeper, Inc. board members John Fry, treasurer, Nancy Abraham, Kathryn Belous Boyle, Pat Crow, Theresa Hanczor, Robert Hodes, Ann Tonetti and Alexander Zagoreas in the action they have taken in resigning from Riverkeeper in opposition to the hiring of a convicted environmental felon to serve in the position of staff scientist on the staff of Riverkeeper.

In issuing this statement of support, The Fishkill Ridge Caretakers wishes to emphasize that ethics cannot be separated from science and that the environmental movement will prosper best in an atmosphere of demonstrated personal responsibility and earned mutual respect.

We encourage individuals as well as environmental organizations to join us in similar expressions of support for the principled stand taken by Boyle and fellow board members in their defense of the ethical integrity of the environmental movement here in the Hudson River Valley.

Boyle and 8 of the 22 Riverkeeper board members resigned from Riverkeeper, Inc. in protest of the hiring of William Wegner. For eight years Wegner operated a ring of smugglers who stole bird eggs directly from the nests of protected cockatoo species in Australia. Wegner and his ring then smuggled the eggs by air to the United States. Birds that hatched and survived were then sold for as much as $12,500.00 each. A federal judge accepted Wegner's plea of guilty to charges of conspiracy and tax fraud and sentenced him to five years in prison. The judge also found that Wegner had attempted to obstruct justice by committing perjury at the trial of a co-defendant Wegner paid a $10,000.00 fine.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has stated that everyone deserves a second chance and notes that he himself had been given a second chance in that he had once been convicted of a drug offense.

We note, however, that Kennedy's offense was essentially a victimless crime while Wegner's offense was a crime against the environment, the people of Australia, the people of the United States and against the birds. In order to avoid detection during the flight, smugglers flushed newly hatched chicks down the plane's toilet

Although Wegner has been convicted and served his sentence, nothing he or anyone else can do will correct the damage he has done or make his victims whole again.

Wegner's prison sentence seems to have done little to improve his ethical sense. The resume Wegner submitted to Riverkeeper accounts for his period of incarceration without referring to the fact of the incarceration itself Wegner describes work he performed and omits the significant information that he performed this work while he was serving time as a prison inmate.

Kennedy overstepped his position as attorney for Riverkeeper when, in November of 1999, he hired Wegner. Boyle terminated Wegner after learning of the hiring and upon review of Wegner's resume, court records and media accounts. The matter came to a climax at a board meeting on June 20th when Kennedy insisted that Wegner be rehired over Boyle's objection.

While we hope Riverkeeper continues to work to produce changed human beings who think and act differently in regard to the Hudson River and all that pertains to it, we also recognize the primary mission of Riverkeeper is not the rehabilitation of Wegner or of those like him.

Sincerely,

Anthony Henry Smith
Poughkeepsie, New York

(for The Fishkill Ridge Caretakers and Fishkill Ridge Community Heritage)

A military spouse's Presidential endorsement.

tqa — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:54:04 +0000

A military spouse's Presidential endorsement.

In today's Atlanta Journal Constitution, Army spouse Elisabeth Kadlec writes:

When we married our spouses, I am sure that none of us were signing up to be single parents. But in essence that is what we become. Many people I know, like my husband, have already been deployed more than three times, and will go again. Most of these deployments are to Iraq or Afghanistan. It always amazes me when people ask me if my husband has to go back. I even laugh at this question!

I think it shows that the public has no idea how many troops make up the armed forces and how many are deployed at a time. Somehow, that message has been lost when we talk about the war. I am pretty much resolved that my husband will be deployed almost every other year. You can only imagine what this does to a family, and how important it is to us that smart decisions are being made for military members.

I don't know Ms. Kadlec, but I sure do know a hell of a lot of people like her - enough to know that she is far from the only military spouse who will be voting Obama this year. She understands, as does every member of every Army family, that the current deployment tempo cannot go on forever, or even for much longer, without causing long-term damage to the army as a whole.

In other news, updates here will be fewer and farther between than normal this week. I'll be spending most of my free time working at the Obama campaign's Pensacola office.

tqa Tue, 10/28/2008 - 03:54

Tags

"Supporting" the Troops

Keep up the good work for Barack Obama. Though all parents are justifiably proud of the service their sons or daughters render in the military, I cannot imagine any parent who WANTS their child to return to combat again and again. Having served four years during the Vietnam War, I know my parents worried about me every day. And it must be doubly difficult for a spouse with children of her own. I only hope Pres. Obama will be able to bring all our troops home as soon as possible.

Do you *really* think Obama will have *fewer* deployments of troops than we have now? He's an old style Democrat interventionist, it will just continue on the way its been, only with the added fig leaf of calling it a "humanitarian" thing. He's already made noises about Pakistan and Sudan, who knows where else he'll see the need for troops. Of course Mad Mac would be far worse so where does that leave an anti-war voter?

"Though all parents are justifiably proud of the service their sons or daughters render in the military"

I would not be proud of a potential child joining the military. I would be worried and scared for them. Same goes for a friend, obviously i'd respect their decision, but would probably make a game attempt at trying to find if there was anything else they'd rather do.

The military is useful, and it is necessary, but I really wouldn't want anyone I know in it. Join the police instead, that way you get to stay at home :)

"grew up" in Pensacola in the '70s. Family still there, & makes me sad to go down. Best wishes with your campaign efforts.

Way to walk the talk, Mike.

The light at the end of the long, dark, republican tunnel is ahead.

have to agree with larry on current democratic position.no real feeling of really cutting back on our "involvements".no criticism of our "drone and sf attacks" in any countries.for all their willingness to keep the troops on the line, no mention about making va funding mandatory not discretionary or what to do about the current suicide rate in the military. how about calling apparent siucides apparent suicides? calling them non-hostile isn't correct.you don't get more hostile than blowing your brains out or other self-inflicted actions.money talks and grunts walk.bring back the draft and this nonsense will end in a hurry.bring democracy back to america. good move from galveston to pensecola.keep those hurricanes guessing. mike

I would be worried and scared for them. Same goes for a friend, obviously i'd respect their decision, but would probably make a game attempt at trying to find if there was anything else they'd rather do.

Anyone has to feel some sense of sorrow for Ms. Kadlec. I would think the average person at home would have little knowledge of deployment time - how many, how long and how often. Most people are not directly involved with the military, so, it is a case of out of sight, out of mind. Overseas deployment has financial advantages at present in the future - it helps greatly with retirement. So most people would assume those families are going to be taken care of. Very little thought is given to the family stress of prolonged absences and the trauma of young children growing up with one parent.

Military spouses are not in a good situation.

Community Organizing and the Scientific Community: A Challenge.

tqa — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:49:06 +0000

Community Organizing and the Scientific Community: A Challenge.

Last week, right around the time that Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin were mocking community organizers at the Republican Convention, I found myself talking about how community organizing can help us become more effective when it comes to dealing with issues where science and politics intersect.

I think this is something that we really need to do. The political groups that are opposed to science are typically very well organized. This is true for the anti-evolutionists, it's true for the global warming denialists, it's true for the anti-vaccinationists, and it's true for the anti-reproductive rights lobby. All of these groups have been extraordinarily effective when it comes to bringing people together around a common cause.

The members of the scientific community, on the other hand, typically belong to many organizations. Sadly, this is not the same as being well-organized.

During my childhood, I had many opportunities to see what community organizing can do. My mother is a professional organizer, and I started going to meetings with her when I was about two. This was in the Bronx, somewhere around thirty years ago. It's really no exaggeration to say that without the community groups, the Bronx would not have managed to do anywhere near as well as it has during that time.

That's because there is real power in numbers. When a single tenant in a slum building tries to do something about the conditions they're living in, progress is (at best) slow. The landlord is never in the office. The buildings department loses the complaints. Local legislators are friendly and courteous, but the matter isn't high on their list of priorities. The tenant who is trying to work on the problem is going to spend a lot of time and effort, and will be rewarded with a lot of frustration.

The same thing is probably going to happen to any other tenant who tries to do it alone - even if they're going through the same steps right around the same time as their neighbor.

When all the tenants in the building band together and refuse to pay rent until the landlord makes the building livable, things are different. The landlord is definitely going to take notice. The city inspectors find it much more difficult to avoid taking action. Elected officials take things very seriously when they know that the issue involves a number of constituents, not just one.

History shows that the organized approach works. It works when it's applied to slumlords and their unlivable buildings. It works when it comes to long-neglected public parks. It works when it comes to getting the local police precinct to pay more attention to neighborhood concerns. Similar approaches have also worked when it came to getting workplace safety and child labor legislation passed. It's also worked in places like Dover, Pennsylvania, when local citizens banded together, ran for office, and got rid of the nincompoops who got the school district into so much trouble.

I doubt that much of what I've said so far is controversial. I've had conversations about this sort of thing with some of before. Every time I've brought up the idea of trying to see if we can make community organizing work for us, the consensus has been that it's an idea worth trying. The problem is that so far, I've never made it past the "talk" point. And it's definitely going to take a lot more than talk for us to get organized.

As my mother has pointed out to me now and again (more or less weekly, over a period of at least a decade), there are professional organizers out there, they've been doing it for a long time, and they've gotten pretty good at it. They've had time to learn what techniques work, which ones don't, and how to modify the basic tools to handle different situations.

Fortunately for us, some of them have actually written some of this stuff down. And that's where my challenge to you comes in.

If there's one person who gets most of the credit for developing community organizing as a profession, it's Saul Alinski. Alinski started out organizing in the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago in the 1930s. In the early 1970s, he published his second book, Rules for Radicals. Alinski was mostly interested in bringing about social and political change, but that doesn't mean that the strategies and tactics he outlines are necessarily going to be inapplicable in our own lives and interests. At the least, I think its worth looking at.

Starting on October 1st, I'm going to begin reading and blogging about "Rules for Radicals" at a pace of one chapter per week. I'm willing to do this by myself, but I think we'll all get a lot more out of it if I'm not the only one reading it. Which brings us to the challenge.

If you think that we (however you define we) need to do a better job when it comes to making the case for the role of good science in any aspect of public policy, read this book with me - especially if you're skeptical that tools developed to help deal with social problems can be used in the field of science communications. It's not a thick book, we're not going to be going through it quickly, and you've got plenty of time to get your hands on a copy.

I'll post on the first chapter four weeks from today - on October 6th. Is anyone else going to read it with me?

tqa Mon, 09/08/2008 - 02:49

Tags

Do Something

Public Perception of Science

Morality and Political Polarity

tqa — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:41:31 +0000

Morality and Political Polarity

Over the weekend, ScienceBlogs was treated to a view of how at least one European views American politics. Archaeologist Martin Rundkvist looked at our spectrum of political belief and compared it to normal politics in his native Sweden. From his perspective, all of American politics is right-wing. Even the Liberal Party, he tells us, is part of the political right in Sweden - and not because they are advocating for things that are all that different than liberals do in America. Lest you think that this is just a European perspective, Australian John Wilkins agrees that the range of acceptable political choices is much more compressed in America than it is elsewhere in the world.

American Chad Orzel took exception to Martin's description. In politics, the physics professor argues, there's no such thing as a privileged reference frame. Instead of claiming that all of American politics falls on the right side of the European spectrum, he points out, one could just as easily argue that all of European politics falls on the left side of the American spectrum. Had he stopped there, I probably would have sat this argument out. But he didn't. Chad went concluded his post with an argument that reflects a very dangerous, and all too-common belief about the political landscape:

What irritates me about this is not just the fact that the reverse comment-- "you Europeans need to become more conservative"-- would be (and is) met with high dudgeon by the same people who will happily tell Americans how to re-shape our political system. It's that the whole thing is completely pointless.
Noting that American politics takes place in a compressed range of ideology relative to the European system is about as productive as noting that European geography takes place in a compressed range of latitudes relative to the United States. It's a fact of the landscape, and you work with it as best you can.

When viewed on the scale of human experience, geography is fixed. If you don't like the mountain that's blocking your view, your only choices are to learn to live with it, or move. Unless you are a major corporation that mines coal, moving the mountain is not an option. The same is true for many other features of geography. It's not true for politics.

Political landscapes can move, and they can often move rapidly. That's certainly been true in Europe over the last century, and it's also been true in America. Groups - even small groups - of committed individuals can create a great deal of change. If you don't like the political landscape in the United States, learning to live with it as best as you can is not the only option. It's just the easiest one.

tqa Mon, 02/04/2008 - 04:41

Tags

Do Something

Yeah, I waffled a bit about that analogy, but decided to leave it in as a hook for comments. You'e absolutely right to note that the political landscape is changeable.

I'd stand by it, though, at least as a starting point. If you want to accomplish some political goal in the US, you're not going to get anywhere with strategies that assume a similar politcal landscape to that in Europe. You may be able to shift the landscape to be more favorable to your cause in time, but you need to start by recognizing that a shift is needed, and work for that shift first and foremost.

QA's Mom, here.

I'm a Community Organizer by profession -- we're just as big on process as scientists.

The 1st rule of organizing is "Start Where You Are."
The 2nd is "Harness Self-Interest"

As I see it futile to expect Americans to view things from a non-American point of view ----

unless you can demonstrate that it is in their interest to do so.

People in other parts of the world are much more apt to try to understand how Americans think because it does effect their self interest.

The problem, as I see it, then becomes the need to get Americans to think globally --- something that is really just beginning to happen

And the challenge will be to keep this new debate/conversation from embracing the racism, and nationalism that has way too frequently, been part of American thinking.

It seems strange to me that anyone would consider US politics to consist of anything but a truncated right-wing view of things. Europeans have always had an especially broad base - from neo-fascists to communists - holding elected office. But it isn't just that.

In how many countries is the idea of socialised health care a fringe idea? In how many countries is opposition to the death penalty a kiss of death? For that matter - how many democratic countries see the idea of electing a woman leader as radical? The biggest Islamic countries (Pakistan in 1988, Bangladesh in 1991, Indonesia in 2001) have all elected women leaders.

There is no spectrum of opinions on the military. You couldn't be elected dog catcher if you didn't say "I support the troops". In countries which don't have a truncated political spectrum there would be politicians who are opposed to having a military at all. And guns? Not only has gun control proved to be political suicide, it also was never more than a tentative idea.

Sure, it isn't fair to judge the American political system from a Swedish perspective. But it is fair to judge it in a global perspective. There really isn't much of a "left" in American politics.

I have to agree with IanG, there seems to be an abundance of shibboleths in American political discourse which narrow the range of debate. The most likely reasons seem to me the fact that your States are very United - your 'national' media set the agenda for a very dominant federal political system; and secondly that it is nearly 150 years since your country was truly divided by a cataclysmic political upheaval. Here in Europe we're still trying to reinvent ourselves since the collapse of the old imperial system (and arguably since the French revolution!) We are surrounded by reminders of Great Experiments that have come and gone (and good riddance to most of them), and we have disabused ourselves of many of the myths and illusions that fed them. So debate tends to be open to more radical ideas, though in practice we tend towards concensus because we still have bruises from when we got too radical in action.

Concerning attitudes to America, a lot of what is portrayed as 'antiAmericanism' is really a jaundiced view of American hegemony: we've seen Great Powers rise before, and we've got the monuments to prove it. But we recognise the signs of decline, and, well, you're family, so we hope you don't mind us pointing it out.

ScienceDebate2008

tqa — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:31:16 +0000

ScienceDebate2008

Why - and when - do bridges fail? How and why does veterinary usage of some medications pose a risk to humans? How important is it to be absolutely certain that global warming is causing an increase in hurricane strength before taking action on the issue? How important is space exploration? How much money should we spend on science education? Do we need to re-examine the way the federal government handles its many science research agencies?

All of those questions - and many, many others that involve science - have the potential to shape the future of the United States for better or worse. The President of the United States makes decisions (either directly from the Oval Office or through appointments) on how to address all of those questions. Science policy may not get as much attention as foreign policy or the domestic agenda, but it's at least as important a part of the President's job.

That's why I was thrilled to learn that there's a serious effort underway to push for a Presidential debate that will focus on issues of science and technology. The ScienceDebate2008 initiative was mentioned by Physicist Lawrence Krauss in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Thursday, and formally launched today.

You'll be hearing more about this over the coming days and weeks, as more details are worked out and more people sign on to the effort. For now, go on over to the website, read the statement, and sign on yourself.

tqa Mon, 12/10/2007 - 08:31

Tags

Unions and Blogs

tqa — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:20:42 +0000

Unions and Blogs

Two unions representing professions involved in the entertainment industry are on strike right now - Broadway stagehands in New York, and writers for both big- and little-screen productions nationwide. These strikes - especially the writers' one - have stirred up some discussion about online writing in general (and blogging in particular), and how non-traditional writers might benefit from unionization. From fellow Scienceblogger Chris Mooney:

Meanwhile, on to bloggers, who are entirely dismissed as workers ... because blogging is somehow supposed to be fun or a hobby. Well, guess what: Some people do not want to blog as a hobby; and some media companies are starting to make serious money off the work of bloggers. To me, and especially in light of all the attention bloggers have gotten in the last few years (they've been credited with playing crucial roles in elections, for instance), this suggests they should be taken much more seriously and treated as workers just like anyone else in many cases. Furthermore, just like freelancers, just like screenwriters, bloggers would benefit by having some sort of standards set in their industry. For one, those who are "professionals" should be fairly compensated for their quality work for blogs that are monetized--that bring in viewership or revenues.

There's a far broader and more resonant point here: An increasing amount people these days are choosing careers that do solely depend on what they create for the Internet. It's not just bloggers. Just look at job listings these days in the areas of media or journalism.

The points that Chris raises there are interesting. Should bloggers be considered to be workers, and if they are, are there benefits to organizing the labor? I don't think there's an easy answer to that question. There are some compelling arguments in favor of unionization in this case, and there are some compelling arguments against it.

Let's start by looking at what a union is and what a union does. At its most basic level, a union is a collection of workers who have banded together in an effort to get more from their employers. In most cases, the "more" is money, but it can just as easily be time off, general working conditions, reasonable hiring and firing, or any number of other things related to the job. That's the collective bargaining side of organized labor. Unions can (and often do) also provide the means for the workers to work together to provide long-term security for each other through union health care and pension plans. That's the safety in numbers side of organized labor.

Now let's look at what, for lack of a better word, I'll refer to as the blogging "industry." This "industry" produces basically a single product: written commentary that is normally hosted on a website and which can normally be read by the general public at no charge. This product is being provided through any number of arrangements. Here's a quick (non-comprehensive) list:

Hobby blogging - people who write about things that interest them because that think it's fun. This category includes most Facebook, MySpace, Bolgspot, and WordPress blogs and bloggers. Most people who blog as a hobby either don't get paid at all, or pick up a very small amount of money from Google ads and/or bookstore affiliate programs.
Advocacy blogging - people who write primarily about specific issues. There's a lot of overlap between this group and the hobby blogging group. People who write for advocacy blogs and don't write as a hobby are typically employed by groups who work on the issue full-time, using both online and more old-school tactics. Political candidate blogs fall into this category.
News blogging - people who write for news blogs usually do so as an adjunct to traditional newswriting. News blogs can be found throughout journalism, at every level from the big cable news channels to weekly neighborhood papers. Sometimes the blog articles are nothing more than ads for upcoming features. In other cases, they're every bit as much a source for interesting, original news as anything else provided by that outlet.
(Semi-)Professional blogging - this is another broad category. Mostly, when I think of professional or semi-professional bloggers, I'm thinking about two groups of people. In one group are bloggers who are paid by someone specifically for writing a blog. In the other are bloggers who may be largely self-employed, but who derive significant income from blogging.

At this point, there are probably a few people who are ready to jump on me, so let me take a couple of seconds and get some disclaimers out of the way. The list above is in no way, shape, or form intended to be comprehensive, authoritative, or anything other than something that I put together off the top of my head. There are obviously going to be a lot of blogs and bloggers who don't fit into any of those four groupings, and the list should not be used for anything more than the purposes of this post.

Now that we've looked at what unions do, and what some rough groups of bloggers do, I think we might have enough information to start thinking about whether bloggers could benefit from unionization, and how something like that would work.

The only real answer to the first question is, "it depends." I think it's pretty clear that most hobby bloggers aren't going to particularly benefit from unionization. These are people who, for the most part, have secure sources of income from other sources, who blog for the sheer joy of it, and who don't have much in the way of long range plans for blogging. Most issue advocacy bloggers probably won't benefit much from unionization either. Some of the people with blogs that are issue-oriented are doing it as a hobby. Others are doing it as a small part of their overall efforts to work on the issue. Some news bloggers and most of the (semi-)professional groups, on the other hand, probably would benefit from organizing. Many of these people write for a living, and the income that they gain from blogging is as much a part of that as income from magazine writing or book royalties. None of that includes the "safety in numbers" union benefits, and the freelancers would probably also benefit from the security that comes from having a general idea of the money that they'll get from different kinds of writing.

The answer to the "how will this work" question is going to be a lot harder to figure out.

With so many different types of blogging and bloggers out there, it's going to be a real challenge finding some way of putting together a system for organizing labor that will effectively provide the benefits and protections of organized labor but will not unreasonably interfere with the free-flowing exchange of ideas that characterizes blogging. Whatever is settled on is going to have to be very flexible. I really don't know what this would look like - ultimately, I suspect that it'll be as influenced as much by musicians unions as writers' guilds.

But would certainly be interesting to try and see if something like that could be made to work.

tqa Mon, 11/12/2007 - 15:20

Tags

Do Something

Misc

Perhaps your concept of "union" is rather broader than mine, but apart from people getting a monthly or weekly paycheck specifically for blogging, I don't see the for of a union as the most appropriate form, and in that particular case probably a more general writers' or journalists' union is more appropriate than a blogger one.

A "bloggers union" would be like a "travelers union". It's too broad for any kind of targeted activity. The term encompasses so vastly different activities in so many fields that trying to come up with some general guidelines for wages or benefits - what unions are about - is impossible.

I'd say that in general an association (like professional associations in other fields) would be a better form for self-employed or side-income bloggers. You'd have many of the same kind of services on offer (legal counsel for instance) but leave the specific negotiation issues aside.

Oh, despite your warning - I think you did leave out one group that is relevant here: people who do blogging as an integral part of their (non-writing) work. The CEO using a blog to communicate with shareholders; support engineer using a blog to inform about system status, issues and upcoming downtime to their customers; researchers blogging about their work as part of their outreach activities; software development people keeping potential customers up to date on the process and soliciting feedback. They're all getting paid to blog, but blogging is not what they do. An association would probably be the best for for them as well.

I think you're missing something crucial: who is the employer that bloggers - as a union - would negotiate with? My understanding is that many bloggers are self-employed. Those who aren't (e.g. those who blog as a normal part of their work) would probably be more appropriately grouped with other employees of their employer. I have no idea what your arrangement with Seed is. If the Sciencebloggers are employed by Seed, then it would make sense for you to organize a Sciencebloggers Union. But a Catbloggers Union, or some catch-all bloggers union wouldn't really make sense absent a common employer. Assuming you charter a union, one of the first steps to establishing collective bargaining rights is to collect signed cards or petition signatures indicating support for unionization among employees of a given employer, and then filing with the National Labor Relations Board for an election to determine whether a majority of employees want to be represented by the union in question. You can see how, in the absence of a common employer, this would be impossible.

A professional association might be a better way to go. And there would be nothing to preclude the professional association from establishing a collective bargaining division to handle bargaining and representation where appropriate.

Actually, social movement unionism could be seen as kind of like the professional association approach, but with a more militant attitude.

DonorsChoose Roundup and Next Steps

tqa — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:51:04 +0000

DonorsChoose Roundup and Next Steps

It's now the day after the DonorsChoose Challenge, and several things are clear.

First, you people rock. This blog is not one of the highest-readership blogs in the Scienceblogs network. Most months, we're not even in the top half. But there's no way that anyone would guess that looking at the final results of the DonorsChoose challenge. At the end of the challenge, we had collected over $3,300. That was the third highest total among the participating Scienceblogs, and it put us into the top 25 of all participating blogs on the interwebs. Thank you all.

Second, you people rock. Scienceblogs.com, as a whole, collected over $54,000, not counting the additional $15,000 that Seed Media will be donating in matching funds. (As of this morning, Steven Colbert and his TV viewers have kicked in $46,000.) It's obvious that Scienceblogs readers care about educating the next generation of American Scientists. Thank you all very, very much.

Third, there's more that can - and needs to be - done. And you can do it.

If this drive has taught me anything, it's that there are a lot of children in this country who don't have much in the way of opportunity when it comes to learning - particularly learning science, or even learning about why science is important to them. Funding the grassroots-level proposals is a good way to help teachers with the science education part of the problem, but we can do more. In particular, we can talk to the kids directly about science, about why we enjoy it, about why it's important to everyone. With any luck, we might even be able to convince one or two kids that this science thing is something that they really can do.

What I'd like to try to is to get as many scientists, doctors, engineers, science writers - anyone with good scientific knowledge - into classrooms as possible. Wherever possible, I'd like people to try and get into classrooms in underprivileged areas (rural or inner city) where students can particularly benefit from the exposure -- schools where the majority of kids are in the federal free lunch program, and where few will go to college. In short, the type of schools that we spent the last month raising money for.

Improving science education is important, it's something that you can help do, and here's why you should do it:

Not all that long ago, the proper term for a person who knows enough meteorology to understand why some scientists worry about the effect of increasing sea temperatures on hurricane risks, enough biology to understand the differences between embryonic and adult stem cells, and enough geology to understand the concept of a global petroleum production peak would have been "nerd." Today, the correct term is "informed citizen." It's hard enough to get people, especially kids, to care about that kind of thing under the best of circumstances. If we don't - if we continue to allow public policy on issues like climate change or medical research or whatever else to be shaped by how many people think "liberal" is a bad word, or how many are pissed off at the Republicans for getting us into Iraq - we are, as a species, well and truly screwed. (Note to international readers: no, I'm not that arrogant about America's ability to solve problems. I'm that confident in our ability to cause them.)

Here's how:

Volunteer. Talk to your local schools, and see what you can do to help. Janet has more on this, and I'll have more on Monday.

tqa Fri, 11/02/2007 - 07:51

Tags

Do Something

Scienceblogs: Clearly More Popular than Steven Colbert

tqa — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:20:32 +0000

Scienceblogs: Clearly More Popular than Steven Colbert

If you are one of the many people who was trying to contribute to the Scienceblogs.com DonorsChoose challenge today, you should know that there's one person you can blame for the trouble you had accessing the site: right-wing spinmeister and wannabe Presidential candidate Steven Colbert. That's right, folks. Like a typical heartless Conservative, Colbert's not content merely trying to shrink government to a convenient, easy to drown size. No, he's not going to rest until he makes it harder for un-American liberal weenies like you to waste your hard-earned dollars by using them to buy things that he knows that students don't really need - like binders, or projection screens, or basic lab supplies. Kids don't need that stuff to learn - a slate, some chalk, and a bible was good enough for grandpa, and it's good enough for junior. Americans shouldn't be giving their money away so that other people can waste it on children. We should be supporting American retail by buying more things made in China. There's an educational benefit to doing that, too - when you're done, give the stuff you buy to the kids. Most of it's got enough lead to write with.

Colbert can try to mess that up for people, by evilly enticing his unwitting viewers into overloading the DonorsChoose site by going there to "vote" for him by giving away money, but he's learning a valuable lesson. He may be more popular than all of the other Presidential candidates combined, but he's not more popular than Scienceblogs. And he's got a long way to go before he gets there.

Right now, here's what the polls have to say:

Steven Colbert has plugged his campaign over and over on the air to his so-called "millions of viewers," but has raised a trivial $43,170.

The blogs of Scienceblogs.com, after much selfless work and dedication, have brought in a spectacular $53,494 - and counting.

Because of Colbert's antics, the DonorsChoose folks have extended the campaign by 24 hours, so you've got a whole extra day to donate, and to show Colbert just what you think of him and his "campaign."

tqa Wed, 10/31/2007 - 15:20

Tags

Do Something

Philanthropy

Um,

Colbert is a liberal, who is mocking right-wingers.

...which is something Mike knows and mocks.

Which delta knew as well and was mocking.

Why do you assume that all of your readers are liberals? it is an ignorant assumption.

"un-American liberal weenies like you"

Donors Choose - Coming Down to the Wire

tqa — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:11:00 +0000

Donors Choose - Coming Down to the Wire

We're now in the last two days of the DonorsChoose Bloggers' Challenge. As things currently stand, this blog is now $88 away from my $2,500 fundraising goal. Unfortunately, we've been more or less stalled for the last couple of weeks, so I'm going to add an incentive to see if we can get over the top.

DonorsChoose has generously committed to give blogs that hit their goals with a 10% bonus that can be used to fund additional projects. I've already contributed some to my own challenge, but if we have met the goal by 10 pm tomorrow night, our family will also contribute 10% of the total raised (up to a maximum of $500).

Here are the proposals in my challenge that still need contributions:

A teacher in the Bronx needs $435 to purchase a skeleton model:

A life-size model of a skeleton would give me a chance to teach the students figure drawing the right way - focusing on basic structure, not only to teach observation, perspective and proportion, but to help them understand that all things have an underlying structure to them. I have heard many science teachers complain that they no longer have time to teach about the skeleton in life science - if it isn't on the test, it isn't taught! If I could have the skeleton model, I could not only teach those very necessary facts but share it with the science department who could build on my lessons in a way that would encourage critical thinking in the students.

A teacher in Chicago needs another $268 to pay for a screen for the overhead projector:

Currently I am projecting my Reading, Writing, Math, Science, and Social Studies lessons on a large piece of white paper. The image that I am able to use is small and usually not very useful. My school is aware of my need, but can't find the money to fund it. This screen would help out greatly in my classroom, so in advance I would like to thank you for your help.

A Bronx special-ed teacher needs another $119 for play-dough:

I feel that if given the chance, especially while they are still young, play dough is one way in which children can use their hands and strengthen some basic fine motor skills needed and at the same time have fun with it. It also would allow students to "model" the letter of the week out of their play dough. It is a fun way to not only learn, but is a great activity for students who are visual learners. On top of that, it allows the children to use their hands to be creative and at the same time, strengthen their gross and fine motor skills.

A Los Angeles teacher needs another $294 to buy binders for students who can't afford them:

Having a binder for their work will allow my students to learn how to categorize and organize their work. They will learn how to refer back to previous work to support their current learning. My students will learn simple organizational skills that will help them become better students. My students need these binders!

A Bronx teacher needs another $498 to buy a photocopier and toner:

Unfortunately, there is only one copy machine in my school building, which tends to malfunction frequently. At times, my school doesn't have the funds to maintain a service contract on the machine, and the copier goes unfixed for days. When it is in good working condition, it takes seven to ten school days to receive them. This is a terrible inconvenience.

Every one of these schools is located in a poor area. Every one of them is asking for things that the students need. Wouldn't it be great if we could fund them all?

tqa Tue, 10/30/2007 - 05:11

Tags

Do Something

Philanthropy

You're done now! Congrats! (Help those kids get the binders!)