Category: colorado

Categories
alternative medicine colorado pseudoscience whats the harm woo at cu

Woo at CU 2: Electric Boogaloo

Remember a week or so ago, when I was unleashing my amazing Powers of Sarcasm on the topic of Powerforce bands being sold with the CU logo? I’ve gotten a reply, and I thought I would share it with the internets.

To review: Powerforce power bands? Still total bullshit. Still claiming that “ions” are going to “give you confidence from within.”

Reply to the e-mail I sent to the Chancellor’s office:

Dear Rachael:

Allow me to answer your query regarding the University’s athletic marketing of the “Power Force” Power Band.

First, let me explain that the previous response that went out to a few individuals who e-mailed Chancellor DiStefano was supposed to be a reply on behalf of the chancellor by a staff member in our Buffalo Sports Properties office, not a reply from the chancellor himself. I apologize for the way the reply was worded – it was confusing as to who the author actually was.

Regarding your query: members of the senior administration staff have carefully reviewed your concerns, looked into the University’s contract with the company that markets the bands, examined our peer universities’ relationships with the company, and reached the following conclusions:

· As you suggest, the claims of the company regarding the efficacy of the band aren’t based on firm scientific ground. However, the band is being marketed by through the athletic department as a novelty with affinity- inspired athletic branding that is unique to CU Athletics. The symbol it uses – the charging Ralphie – represents CU sports teams, not the university as a whole, and certainly not its research entities.

· In the same spirit, our sports-labeled products include everything from sweat bands to golf tees to lawn gnomes. These are all designed to create affinity and build school spirit, not to be literal representations of the University and its academic work.

· Likewise, the company is offering the same Powerforce Power Bands for universities that include Cal, Penn State, Missouri, Pitt and a host of other peer schools. These are quality institutions that, like us, have elected to promote a novelty item with an athletic logo for affinity and commercial purposes.

I appreciate your concern and that of your fellow graduate students and other skeptics. Your respect for science and the scientific method is manifest inyour concern, and your dedication to advancing our highest academic values is impressive.

We do not believe in the end, however, that novelty items like the “Power Force Power Band” are threats to these values.

Sincerely,

Bronson R. Hilliard, director of media relations and spokesperson
University of Colorado at Boulder

I believe that, in legal circles, this is what’s known as “the novelty item defense.” Right up there with “the metaphor” defense.

Rather than write a completely separate blog entry, I thought I would simply publicly repost the reply I sent to Mr. Hilliard a few minutes ago. While I admit that I would dearly love to say some snarky, snarky things, I don’t think that would be fair to Mr. Hilliard, who has been very polite to me.

HOWEVER. If you can’t survive without your daily requirement of snark on this one, Please see Stuart’s blog. He has taken up the baton of sarcasm and run with it most admirably.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my e-mail. I would like to address a few of the points that you’ve made, so please indulge me in that.

[Snip: Mr. Hilliard’s point about Ralphie representing the athletics teams rather than the academic departments.]

My impression has always been that in the public view, the sports teams and the university are inextricably linked. The student athletes that make up our teams are just that – students as well as athletes. In many ways, what sports teams do and promote can represent the school in some very profound ways. At an extreme, bad behavior by student athletes (eg: assaults, etc) can reflect extremely poorly upon whatever school that athlete belongs to. I bring this example up not because I would in any way equate a violent assault with the promotion of a pseudoscientific product, but more to exemplify my view that the athletic team of a university is not necessarily viewed as a completely separate entity.

And likewise, while Ralphie is most assuredly the emblem of the athletics teams, he is likewise associated completely with the name of the University of Colorado at Boulder. I think that it’s important to note that those of us here primarily for academic pursuits still have a certain level of team spirit and affection for our mascot. We don’t view Ralphie as the property of the athletic department alone and completely separate from us either. School spirit is school spirit, whether we are taking pride in CU because we’re fans of the football team or because we’re building a mission to Mars – or both.

[Snip: Mr. Hilliard’s point about novelty items.]

I think the salient point here, however, is that neither golf tees nor lawn gnomes are claiming to power one’s “inner force” with “ions.” There are novelty items, and there are novelty items.

Items that tacitly promote nonscientific or pseudoscientific ideas often get a pass with the label of “novelty item” – dowsing pendants, Ouija boards, and some very questionable medical devices spring to mind here. While many people doubtless consider pendants and Ouija boards to be nothing but silly novelties, it’s also undeniable that some people do take these items, and their claims very seriously. Sometimes to their very real harm. Another example of this would be ear candles, which have not been approved for medical use by the FDA but can still be sold (with a nod and a wink) as “novelty items.”

My concern here is, if we are going to promote the sale of a “novelty item” that makes such a questionable claim, where will the line be drawn?

[Snip: Mr. Hilliard’s point about the other universities.]

I actually find it quite distressing that such prestigious universities are associating themselves with this company and its carefully non-specific but nonetheless embarrassingly unscientific claims. I also feel like I have less standing to voice a complaint to the faculty at those schools, as I am not a student there.

That Penn State or Cal have decided to promote an item such as this should, I think, not be a justification for CU to do so as well. Rather, this could be an opportunity for CU to lead the way in standing on principles of both scientific rigor and team spirit. We can show our team and school pride in many ways (even with the occasional lawn gnome) while subtly brandishing out academic credentials as well.

Again, I think you for your time.

I will admit that when I first read Mr. Hilliard’s point about the other universities involved with this “novelty item,” I heard my mother’s voice very clearly in my head, asking me, “If all your friends were jumping off a cliff, would you do it too?”

Hm, do ions help you develop psychic powers?

Categories
alternative medicine colorado pseudoscience whats the harm woo at cu

Your Ions. They Make Me Feel So… Confident

Recently a friend of mine – who wishes to remain nameless at this time – saw a product marketed at a CU Buffs football game. It’s the Power Force Wrist Band.

I will note that the Power Force website is actually fairly unimpressive, particularly since it looks like a lot of the pictures are badly trimmed. But even more unimpressive is the description of the product in question:

Power Force’s Innovative Products were developed to work with your body’s natural inner force. Within each Power Force powerband are ions that work with your body’s energy to give you confidence from within. Your inner force is limitless. Channel this force with Power Force powerband. Power Your Inner Force.

Emphasis mine. Now, it could be that I just haven’t gotten far enough into chemistry, but what I do recall about ions tells me that they’re ubiquitous, important, and have absolutely nothing to do with one’s self-confidence1. The phrases “your body’s natural inner force” and “your body’s energy” are essentially meaningless. They also strongly call to mind the justification behind many types of “alternative medicine,” which is that the body has some sort of energy field that permeates it and can be manipulated. (Reiki is one example of this.)

I will also note that, upon inspecting the site, the products look eerily like another silly energy bracelet, the Power Balance Wrist Band, which claims:

Power Balance is based on the idea of optimizing the body’s natural energy flow, similar to concepts behind many Eastern philosophies. The hologram in Power Balance is designed to resonate with and respond to the natural energy field of the body.

The claims of Power Balance have been thoroughly taken apart by Dr. Harriet Hall at the Science-Based Medicine Blog and Device Watch.

To be fair, there is no solid proof that Power Balance and Power Force come from the same company; both are owned by LLCs of different names, and the two sites were registered to different people. Rather it’s just the similarity of the claims and the look of the products that caught my attention. And frankly, it’s an alt-med rip-off whether the silly plastic bracelet is claiming to optimize your body’s non-existent energy flow or promote your “inner force” with ions. Both statements are the sort of thing that cause physicists (and biologists) to laugh uncontrollably or curl up in a corner, sobbing, because it’s just not any fun to watch somebody torture your beloved science.

For more science and less sarcasm on this topic, I urge you to go read Stuart’s post over at Exposing PseudoAstronomy.

Beyond the normal skeptic grumbling about ridiculous products, there’s another reason this silly “ion” wrist band is upsetting. CU Boulder is most well known for two things – our football team, and our research. The University of Colorado at Boulder is a Research I University, which means we award a lot of doctorates and get a lot of federal research funding. We have three Nobel laureates in the physics department – a poster outside of the physics building advertises this fact.

So to advertise the brain power and research acumen of CU in one breath and then advertise a bunch of pseudoscientific crap in the next seems like a real problem to at least this little nerd.

It also sounded like a problem to my friend, who wrote an unhappy e-mail to the Chancellor of the University and the Athletics Director. The answer they got back was most unfortunate:

Dear [Name redacted at request of original e-mail recipient],
I asked our athletic department for an explanation for you regarding how products receive permission to use the CU logo and its endorsement. Buffalo Sports Properties owns the rights to all the advertising and sponsorship opportunities so this is their response.

” The company Powerforce went through all of the appropriate channels for approval to use the CU marks and logos. They applied for the CU license through CLC and based on the company’s information, goals and objectives, a license was granted. Additionally, the company has paid for a sponsorship with CU Athletics, which is the product was promoted on the video board.

As for the actual product, there has been research about magnetic therapy and its effects on pain, stress, fatigue, and concentration. While I don’t have access to our campus library (which may have better access to scientific research), here are two links to websites with articles about magnetic therapy.
http://www.articlesbase.com/medicine-articles/magnetic-bracelet-therapy-case-study-by-dr-carlos-vallbona-usa-2268067.html
http://www.magnetictherapyfacts.org/magnetic_therapy_research.asp

Thanks,
[Name and contact info also redacted by request of the e-mail recipient]

Thank you for your interest and support of CU.

Go Buffs!

Philip P. DiStefano, Chancellor
University of Colorado Boulder

Okay, I have no idea where this magnet therapy thing came from, considering the Power Force website only mentions ions. But lest we forget, magnet therapy is also largely crap as well. Dr. Steven Novella has a nice historical overview at the NeuroLogica Blog, which ends on this lovely research note.

I’ll be writing my own e-mail to the office of the Chancellor shortly, just to add my voice. I ask that you consider doing so as well.

Oh, but it’s just a silly little plastic bracelet. Really, Geek, what’s the harm?

1 – Well, except maybe for the tungstate ion. It makes me feel all warm and squishy whenever I think about it.

Categories
colorado feminism

A child should be a choice

Today I hung my No On 62 sign on my patio door. I don’t actually have a yard, so yard signs aren’t really possible. I also got my Blue Book today, which I tore in to immediately. Mostly because I was curious about what the Blue Book had to say about Amendment 62, since the proponents of the measure tried to sue over it a couple weeks ago.

“They have not included a single word — not a single word — of our arguments,” Garcia-Jones said.

Likely because the arguments of the proponents are either filled with emotionally charged language, which has no place in the exceptionally dry and matter-of-fact style of the Blue Book, or because the arguments were patently untrue.

Garcia-Jones said that the Blue Book’s arguments against Amendment 62 are false because it could never, as the booklet states, cause women to be denied medical treatment for a miscarriage. The amendment could not, he said, put doctors and other health professionals at risk of legal action for providing medical care to women of childbearing age.

I will Give Garcia-Jones the benefit of the doubt and not accuse him of lying in this case. I think he simply does not understand the unintended consequences of banning abortion absolutely. Take a look at what’s happened in El Salvador; doctors become reluctant to give care for miscarriages, since they may be afraid that they will be accused of causing the miscarriage, or the miscarriage itself might be the result of an illegal abortion. And frankly, I think if abortion were made absolutely illegal, doctors might very well not want to treat women of childbearing age because they may become pregnant at any time and not necessarily realize it. If you want to define a fertilized egg as a person, well, last I checked even if you accidentally kill a person, you don’t just get a pat on the head and a wave to go on your merry way.

Of course, I’m naughty for even using the phrase “fertilized egg.” One of the proponents said:

“I think it’s important to note with the term fertilized egg, that’s the same thing as using the N word for an African American,” said Mason. “Because it’s a dehumanizing term and it’s not based in science. The term would be a zygote, or an embryo, speaking of a unique individual.”

A fertilized egg is a zygote is a fertilized egg. ACOG certainly uses the term “fertilized egg” without blushing. I think it’s really an attempt by the 62 proponents to up the emotional charge on the language, because they know that they can’t win with either logic or science. I’m actually quite surprised Mason isn’t insisting on calling it a baby from the instant of conception onward, but that’s probably a little too extreme.

I’d like to throw one more quote at you, where the proponents try to squirm out of the fact that the amendment would ban many extremely popular forms of birth control, including my favorite, the pill:

True contraception prevents fertilization and personhood for pre-born babies will legally protect every baby from the beginning of his or her biological development,” said Hanks in an e-mail. “Only those forms of “birth control” that extinguish a life that has already begun will be impacted. Many of the oral “contraceptives” have an action that makes the womb inhospitable to a developing embryo and hence, the new living, growing baby is prevented from residing where his or her Creator intended until birth.”

This quote characterizes everything that is wrong with the position of the Amendment 62 proponents – and delineates why I don’t just think they’re idiots, I actively hate them.

To begin with, Hanks brings up the “Creator” and the Creator’s intentions as a means to justify banning birth control. For those of us that don’t believe in gods, this is an argument that holds no water. It makes the point very clear that Amendment 62 is about making a personal religious belief into a law that would control the lives of all women that live in Colorado.

But even more to the point, everything in that quote is about the baby. The woman is reduced to a womb, to “where his or her Creator” intends the baby to reside. In their efforts to grant “personhood” to a fertilized egg, they simultaneously remove “personhood” from the woman involved.

That is what makes me angry, and filled with hate, and very afraid. Since I first became aware of the abortion debate, I honed in immediately on the fact that efforts to ban abortion reduce women to less than full citizens, chattel who do not truly own and control their own bodies and can be forced by the state to complete a pregnancy. I don’t appreciate my rights, my life, my existence being reduced to the state of one organ within my body.

And perhaps that’s the cruelest joke of this horrible debate. These people have made me resent the very idea of being pregnant, have made me resent babies. Because I can’t help but resent anything and anyone that would reduce my life from a glorious adventure that I (mostly) direct to an existence that is wholly outside of my own control.

I often see bumper stickers around here, that say: “It’s a child, not a choice.” I could not disagree more. It is a choice. It should be a choice. It must be a choice.

I have several friends that have children, who they love very much. Each and every one of these amazing women, whether the pregnancy was intentional or not, ultimately chose to change the course of her life and become a mother. That choice made the baby a cherished and loved member of the family, rather than a burden forced on the mother by the state.

I don’t want to be a mother right now. I may never want to be. But I want that chance, to decide for myself. I want that choice. I want all women to have that choice. In the future, I want my niece to have that choice.

No on 62.

Categories
colorado conspiracy theory wtf

Cycling our way to a New World Order

This is why I love state/local politics. It’s also why I occasionally feel the need to drink cough syrup until I put myself in an uncaring stupor so that the unceasing bombardment of stupid will just stop for a moment.

Maes said in a later interview that he once thought the mayor’s efforts to promote cycling and other environmental initiatives were harmless and well-meaning. Now he realizes “that’s exactly the attitude they want you to have.”

The ominous they of course are the United Nations, no relation to the giant radioactive ants of Them. (Or ARE they?)

I’m not sure what I find funniest about Maes’ position – that he’s attempting to make the UN some sort of boogeyman for Colorado, or that the UN’s supposed nefarious plot is to (THE HORROR!) get people to whiz around on cute little red bicycles in downtown Denver. Those bastards! Driving an enormous, gas-guzzling car between any two points that are more than ten feet apart is the American way, you know. Curse you Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, you won’t get away with this twisted plot no matter how adorable the little dingly bells on those bicycles are. We’re Americans, damnit!

“At first, I thought, ‘Gosh, public transportation, what’s wrong with that, and what’s wrong with people parking their cars and riding their bikes? And what’s wrong with incentives for green cars?’ But if you do your homework and research, you realize ICLEI is part of a greater strategy to rein in American cities under a United Nations treaty,” Maes said.

Imagine me doing this in my best Glen Beck Voice:
First they came for our SUVs, and I said nothing because I didn’t own an SUV. Then they gave me a bicycle, and I still said nothing, because I thought they were kind of cute. Then they established the new world order in our city and started exterminating anyone that didn’t believe in their twisted socialist agenda and…

I can’t do it. I just can’t. I threw up in my mouth a little just then.

Needless to say, Maes is the “Tea Party” favorite, which I’m starting to think translates out to “we think a strait jacket is a perfectly valid fashion statement.” I find myself actually hoping that he gets the Republican nomination. First off, because I like Hickenlooper, and I think this level of crazy is just the boost his campaign needs. And secondly, there’s something wrong in my brain which means I actually enjoy trying to laugh and cry at the same time, so this man’s campaign literature (which I’ll no doubt be bombarded with since I’m unaffiliated with a political party) would be an amazing resource for me.

Categories
colorado education

Local: I fear for the future of education in Colorado

SB10-191 (“Ensuring Quality Instruction Through Educator Effectiveness”) has passed the Colorado state senate and moved on to the House education committee.

This is another bill in the tradition of “blame the teachers if students fail.” I realize that mediocre and downright bad teachers exist. We’ve all had them in the past and can remember them well, no doubt. However, I think it’s pretty unfair to teachers in general to pretend that outside factors don’t have a profound effect on a kid’s ability to make it to school and learn. Does the kid have supportive parents? Are they from an abusive family? Did they go to pre-school? Do they have a learning disability that no one has the funding to address? And so on.

Admittedly, I didn’t think of a lot of these things myself until my best friend started teaching at a high poverty school, and I visited her class to meet some of the kids. There were a lot of great, wonderful little human beings, and I think most of them were really doing their best to learn – they sure asked a lot of questions when I talked a little bit about rocks in Colorado. But looking back at my own childhood, I can also see that no matter how bright and attentive a child might be at school, they may not be able to provide the test scores you think they should if, for example, they don’t get meals outside of school lunches and breakfasts because their family is that desperately poor. Or if they go home and get beaten half to death by their father, or mother, or older sibling. Or. Or.

The proposed law would impose yet another round of standardized tests on children that already spend a shocking amount of time practicing for and doing tests as mandated by No Child Left Behind. And then the results would make up half of a teacher’s “effectiveness” rating, which could potentially cause the teacher to lose their non-probationary status, which is Colorado-speak for losing tenure. Oh yes, and there’s no funding in it for developing the new assessment tests either, which seems like a bad idea since the state funding for schools has already taken a big hit this year.

I see a lot of unintended consequences coming from linking a teacher’s career so tightly to standardized tests in the name of accountability. I can foresee some teachers being worried enough about the testing that emphasis will shift even more toward teaching to the test, which doesn’t do the students a whole lot of good in the long run. And I see this as a means to “scare” teachers away from wanting to work in high-poverty schools, because classically children in those environments test fairly poorly. High poverty schools have enough problems1 without adding “destroyer of careers” to their repertoires. Unfortunately, I think this bill was largely created without considering those implications, because the plight of students at high poverty schools – and the extra disadvantages many of the kids have – is largely invisible to those not directly involved.

I certainly understand the desire to hold teachers accountable; no one likes the thought that an awful teacher is soaking up public money while not doing their job. But I really, really, really don’t think this is the solution, and frankly, I think the “awful teacher” has become a boogeyman that’s distracting policymakers from attempting to address the very real problems in public education. When the state budget for education has been slashed, it’s a lot easier to concentrate on “awful teachers” ruining students than address the effect that drop in funding will have on necessary programs, or admit that just maybe, we need to pitch in a little more on taxes so we don’t shortchange the intellectual future of our state. When low wages and an ailing economy a preventing parents from being involved in the education of their children because they’re trying to make ends meet on multiple low-wage part-time jobs, it’s a lot easier to blame “awful teachers” than to try to figure out how to enable the parents so that they can help their children excel.

I’m proud to say that my state senator, Evie Hudak was one of the 14 “no” votes on the bill in the senate. I’ve e-mailed my representative to let her know what I think. Ms. Hudak had a lot to say about why she voted no, and if you don’t buy my less-than-expert arguments, hers are much more worthwhile:
Senate Bill 191, Principal and Teacher Effectiveness
Why I Voted NO on SB 191

1 – Like not being able to afford, I don’t know, paper.

Categories
colorado education

Just a quick follow-up from yesterday

I think that this is a fine example of why I think the proposed “religious bill of rights” for students in Colorado would be a stupid, stupid idea.

Because if nothing else, a lot of the language in that so-called “bill of rights” sure makes it sound like this kind of shit would be acceptable:

Parents said the situation escalated after a student put a postcard of Jesus on Hussain’s desk that the teacher threw in the trash. Parents also said Hussain sent to the office students who, during a lesson about evolution, asked about the role of God in creation.

On her Facebook page, Hussain wrote about students spreading rumors that she was a Jesus hater. She complained about her students wearing Jesus T-shirts and singing “Jesus Loves Me.” She objected to students reading the Bible instead of doing class work.

But Annette Balint, whose daughter is in Hussain’s class, said the students have the right to wear those shirts and sing “Jesus Loves Me,” a long-time Sunday School staple. She said the students were reading the Bible during free time in class.

“She doesn’t have to be a professing Christian to be in the classroom,” Balint said. “But she can’t go the other way and not allow God to be mentioned.”

Sounds like an awesome learning environment to me. More commentary at Pharyngula.

In good news, as of yesterday – I’m thinking some time after I wrote the long, bitchy post about it1 – the Judiciary Committee:

After consideration on the merits, the Committee recommends the following:
SB10-089 be postponed indefinitely.

I take that to be state senate speak for “We think this is such a phenomenally stupid idea that we’re just going to sit on it until everyone forgets this bill even existed.” Or I can hope.

EDIT: Phil Plait pointed out to me that the judiciary committee went straight along party lines. That is completely unsurprising in this state. When I checked out the actual votes, I noticed that Evie Hudak is one of the members of the committee, and she’s my state senator2. I think I shall send her a nice note, since she voted to kill the thing.

1 – I am totally not proposing a causal link between these two things (or involving the post that Phil Plait wrote that prompted me to be cranky) but wouldn’t it be awesome if there was?

2 – Not only did I vote for her, I also donated $200 to her campaign when she ran; I received an attack ad from her opponent featuring a hysterical warning about how Mrs. Hudak wants pedophiles to rape your children in the bathroom because she supported a bill that lets transgendered individuals use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. It made me just a little angry.

Categories
colorado education

Like a fish needs a bicycle.

Saw on Phil Plait’s blog this morning that the Colorado state Legislature is considering a “religious bill of rights” for students. Phil’s got a lot of good commentary about it already, but I thought I’d take a look through it myself and see what I thought; local issues are pretty darn important.

What caught my eye first are a couple bits out of the very beginning, which are justifications for why we’d need something like this:

(b) MANY INDIVIDUALS ARE UNAWARE OF THEIR EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. BECAUSE THESE RIGHTS ARE COMING UNDER INCREASING ATTACK IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, A METHOD TO RECOGNIZE, PROMOTE, AND ENFORCE THESE RIGHTS IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO STUDENTS, PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND EMPLOYEES.

And:

(e) THERE IS A GROWING PERCEPTION AMONG CITIZENS THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE HOSTILE TO INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION AND EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, AND PARENTS OR GUARDIANS WHOSE CHILDREN FEEL THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS ARE BEING SUPPRESSED OR THREATENED ARE REMOVING THEIR CHILDREN FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THUS SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S PUPIL COUNT AND THEREFORE ITS REVENUE

Frankly, kids DON’T have free speech in public school1. I don’t think they ever have. In some schools, there are uniforms are strict dress codes, often times out of concern regarding kids wearing gang colors to school and making the environment less safe. That’s how it was when I went to school here, and in some places it’s become a lot more restrictive in the time since I graduated. There are a lot of rules in place for schools in regards to speech in general that are supposed to be there to guarantee a safe learning environment. Fred Phelps may be allowed to run around in the outside world with a sign that screams “God Hates Fags” because it’s his Constitutional right to be a hate-filled douchebag, but that sort of thing is not currently allowed in schools because it creates an extremely hostile environment for students who are, for example, perceived to be gay.

So that’s the first question – do kids in public schools have a right to free speech as strong as that of adults outside of schools? Does that right mean they have the unfettered right to make life hell for other students? School – and upper level schools in particular – are already a flaming cesspit of kids trying to find an other to demonize. So does a kid get a right to free speech that extends to creating an extremely hostile – possibly deadly – environment for other students?

You may think I’m going a little far here, but consider that there has been some conservative Christian shrieking about how the Matthew Shepard Act is totally going to restrict their religious freedom. Because apparently, hate crimes against gays are essential to religious freedom in this country.

Which sort of leads in to this idea that people have a perception their religious freedom is being impinged upon. As mentioned above, because it’s now a hate crime with a harsher sentence to beat someone else to death because they’re gay. We’ve also seen some sneaky attempts to get mandatory prayer back in to schools, disguised as a moment of silence. Some outright believe that America is going to hell in a handbasket because mandatory prayer has been struck down; they don’t seem to realize that prayer is just fine and dandy and protected as long as it’s not mandated by the school. So frankly, I’m not that impressed by the “PERCEPTION AMONG CITIZENS THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE HOSTILE TO INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION AND EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS” because it sure smells like the ol’ Christian persecution complex to me. I’m sure it’s not pleasant to be in a privileged group that is slowly losing its privilege and being treated like everyone else. But this particular bill is just going to be more mental justification for the persecution complex, I think – “See? Our religion is under attack! We need a religious bill of rights!”

Scanning through the student’s rights section, there are some things I really take exception to on principle:

(IV) SING RELIGIOUS SONGS ALONG WITH SECULAR SONGS AS PART OF A SCHOOL-SPONSORED OR CURRICULUM-RELATED PROGRAM;

Should there be religious songs as part of a school sponsored program to begin with? Is this the school promoting religion?

(VI) WEAR RELIGIOUS GARB ON A PUBLIC SCHOOL CAMPUS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLOTHING WITH A RELIGIOUS MESSAGE;

See “God hates fags,” above.

(VII) EXPRESS HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR SELECT RELIGIOUS MATERIALS WHEN RESPONDING TO A SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT IF HIS OR HER RESPONSE REASONABLY MEETS THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT;

See Phil Plait on this one.

And for the teachers:

(V) ANSWER A STUDENT’S QUESTION ON A RELIGIOUS TOPIC;

Honestly, if I were a parent, I would take SERIOUS exception to this.

(VI) NOT BE REQUIRED TO TEACH A TOPIC THAT VIOLATES HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT BE DISCIPLINED FOR REFUSING TO TEACH THE TOPIC;

Again, see Phil Plait. But I would also add that this one really pisses me off, just like pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. If you disagree with something, that’s fine. How about being a responsible adult and not putting yourself in a position where you’ll have to do something you find morally repugnant, instead of an arrogant fuckwad that does it on purpose in order to push your personal beliefs on others?

Also:

(a) A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT TO OPT OUT OF ANY CLASS OR THE USE OF SPECIFIC COURSE MATERIAL THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; OR

Have fun in regular college, kid. That shit don’t fly there.

Though really, I have another issue with the above. Though we all do it to some extent, it’s pretty stupid to isolate yourself completely from viewpoints that disagree with your own. If nothing else, disagreement is how we learn to flex our intellectual muscles. Of course the most obvious application of this is creationism versus evolution, in allowing a kid to completely hide from any material relating to evolution. But technically, this also applies to world history that covers the ancient world, since there were civilizations that existed long before the creationist god created the world. Or if we want to get super ridiculous, the definition of pi in the Bible is actually 3, not 3.14. Oops.

Personally, I don’t think public school should be a place where you get to be sheltered entirely from anything and everything that disagrees with your worldview. You’re certainly not being sheltered from other kids that may disagree. I’m sure there are parents who disagree with me, though I hope they realize that their kids are in for a serious shock if they go on to higher education at anywhere that isn’t Liberty University.

Honestly, I think it probably wouldn’t hurt if a school wanted to cover its butt on religious grounds by having a pamphlet available about all the relevant Supreme Court rulings; that would actually be quite educational. Citizens of all ages really ought to be aware of what their Constitutional rights are and what they mean. But this thing isn’t framed in relation to the Constitution of the United States. Instead, the framing of this bill feeds the ridiculous Christian persecution complex, and really pushes the bounds on several things. It’s one thing to let a curious kid know that yes, their ability to go have a prayer group each morning at the flagpole before school is Constitutionally protected. It’s another entirely to give a teacher tacit approval to deviate from the curriculum because they have a religious disagreement with it.

I’m really hoping this one dies of neglect in committee.

1 – Thinking back to high school, I think you could make a good argument that schools aren’t even on the same PLANET as the rest of us.

Categories
colorado hoax

Local: Heene gets the book thrown at him

Richard and Mayumi Heene got sentences this morning for wasting everyone’s time with their balloon hoax. (See here for a reminder if you’ve somehow forgotten that glorious week in October for which the highlight was video of a six-year-old boy vomiting on national TV.) The jail sentences are fairly light (Richard Heene is going to spend 30 days in jail full time only) but the couple is also being hit with mountain bills from the various local, state, and federal agencies that had their time wasted by this stupid bid for public attention. Per the article, the bill is currently sitting at $47,000, and could go up.

I think the judge for the case put it best:

“In summary,” Schapanski said in imposing Richard Heene’s sentence, “what this case is about is deception, exploitation — exploitation of the children of the Heenes, exploitation of the media and exploitation of people’s emotions — and money.”

Obviously the legal system in Colorado isn’t taking this one lightly. It’d be nice if Judge Schapanski could say similar stern things to, say, Peckman (he of the UFO commission ballot initiative) but I suppose wasting a lot of public time and money isn’t illegal if you’re just a deluded (yet arguably honest) crank.

Categories
climate change colorado

Another bit on climate-gate.

Mike Littwin did a lovely opinion piece in the Denver Post about it today. I don’t often read the local paper (unless they inexplicably have cattle mutilations as the front page story, as if the health care debate and even Tiger Woods had ceased to exist), and I hear a lot from my mother about how the opinion pieces in the paper practically slosh with crazy these days. But it looks like at least some of the time, they’re getting it very right.

There is nothing particularly new in doubting what you don’t understand. There are flat-earthers even today. But some things have changed. The Internet has made more information available to more people than ever before. But it also has led to what you might call a democratization of the facts, in which everyone’s “facts” turn out to be equal.

Indeed.

Categories
colorado ufo

Moo? Moo.

You know who else is always baffled, along with doctors? Apparently: Ranchers, cops, and a UFO believer. Cattle mutilations in Colorado! Woohoo! And on the front page of today’s Denver Post.

I hadn’t realized it, but apparently we have our own tradition of whacky cattle mutilation tall tales in Colorado. “Phantom Surgeons of the Plains” certainly has a nice ring to it. Though what I find quite interesting here is that the “UFO Investigator” that has been looking at these seems fairly convinced himself that it’s not UFOs, but humans.

“I’m looking for obvious things,” Zukowski says. “I don’t like to say aliens did it. There are just too many unknowns. I like to lean on human intervention until I actually see a UFO come down and take a cow.”

Well, you certainly have to give him credit for that. I actually feel very charmed that he’s looking for a mundane explanation instead of immediately concluding that it was aliens because no one knows exactly what was happening. I’ve gotten the impression that it’s a fairly unusual attitude to have.

The one picture that’s on the article (which is fairly gross) isn’t really good enough to even begin to make guesses. I’d be curious to know what’s giving this impression, though:

“It’s weird and unexplainable,” says Duran, who lost a healthy 27-year-old Red Angus cow on March 8, her udder and rear end removed with what he describes as “laser cuts, like when somebody cuts metal with a torch.”

Were there apparent burns, or is he just sticking with the meme that only human intervention can cause cuts to appear straight or precise? If nothing else, the icky picture looks like the carcass has started to decompose, and depending on the weather out here, that’ll either mean that it’s going to bloat or dehydrate, or do a weird combination of the two. That alone would probably alter the appearance of wounds on an animal.

Also, much is made about the udders, the eyes, and the missing entrails; that’s all pretty standard, and the best explanation for that is often that insects like eating the wobbly bits instead of chewing through leather. Which is fair enough. I don’t like chewing on leather, myself. From the article (though it’s hard to tell) it doesn’t sound like the calf that was found right away was missing the squishy bits. In the end, it may not be possible to say exactly what killed these cows. But like most mutilation cases, leaping to the alien conclusion is a big, big leap. Dead things look weird when you’ve let them sit out for a bit, so that even natural causes start looking decidedly unnatural to anyone that’s not a forensic scientist. There are predators around of the four-legged variety, and possibly of the two-legged variety that widen the prospects of just how weird things might look.

I find it sadly ironic that the UFO investigator says that he doesn’t think it was UFOs, but one of the ranchers apparently does:

“I do believe it was UFOs. This universe is so big, a lot of people think we are the only ones here,” he says, declining to guess why aliens harbor such bloody disdain for bovines.

“I bet there is something out there.”

Something that really, really hates cows, apparently.