Silly me, I was assuming this Trevor Noah they said was going to replace Jon Stewart was one of the regulars on his show and I just happened not to have seen him. But no – apparently they just wrote a bunch of comedians’ names down on file cards and threw them all up in the air and then stabbed one with a spike and that was the new Jon Stewart. Because guess what, it turns out he’s

• an asshole
• not funny

Now if they had sat down and carefully thought about who would be good for the host of the Daily Show, they could have found someone who was neither an asshole nor unfunny. There are people like that. Instead they zeroed in on someone who is both. How inept of them.

Jessica Winter at Slate shares some of the ways he’s an unfunny asshole.

Then people—notably BuzzFeed’s Tom Gara—started combing Noah’s Twitter feed.

There were tweets that showcased Noah’s breezy anti-semitism.

Behind every successful Rap Billionaire is a double as rich Jewish man. #BeatsByDreidel

Messi gets the ball and the real players try foul him, but Messi doesn’t go down easy, just like jewish chicks. #ElClasico

There were tweets that put a spotlight on the polyglot Noah’s fluency in fat-chick jokes.

“Oh yeah the weekend. People are gonna get drunk & think that I’m sexy!” – fat chicks everywhere.

So now that Adele is singing, does that mean it’s over?

And there’s lots more like that.

Smart shopping, Comedy Central.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Originally a comment by Kausik Datta on “Because he humiliated my Prophet.”

The situation becomes even more chilling when you consider the situation as reported in Bangla news channels.
1. These three assailants did not know Washiqur, did not know of Washiqur, and didn’t even know how he looked like, where he lived and what he had done to warrant the wrath of the fundies.

2. These three assailants didn’t even know each other. They are students of Islam, in their middle to late 20s. Of the two who have been captured, one (Zikrullah) is a student of a Madrassah in Chittagong, the main seaport in southern Bangladesh, and the other (Ariful) is a student of another Madrassah (under same management) in a district in more centrally located Dhaka. The distance between the two is about 180 miles, but because of the terrain, by road the journey from one to the other takes about 6 hours. They must have been motivated enough to make that journey.

3. The same person called all three of them to Dhaka. He explained to them that Washiqur had to be killed because he had insulted Islam and the Prophet. He brought the trio to Washiqur’s locality and pointed out his house, as well as familiarized them with a photo of Washiqur. They had detailed discussions on the daily routine of Washiqur and the pathway he follows to work. Next, he gave three machetes (“choppers”) to the three of them and told them to go ahead.

I don’t know what kind of hold this person had on the three, but apparently, his words were good enough. The captured two have stated that they belong to no religious or fundamentalist organization. They committed this horrific act simply at the behest of that person, the organizer, and they showed no trace of remorse – something I cannot wrap my head around.

What kind of hold can one human have on another human, so that the latter can – without compunction – go and commit an act of ultimate violence, murder, upon a stranger? The obvious parallel that comes to my mind is soldiers, who sometimes go to foreign lands and wage war on people – doing exactly as they are instructed by their commanding officers, without question or dissent. These three assailants seem very soldierly in that respect. But what war are they fighting? What do they represent? If religion or religious belief supplies the kindling that can burst into flames of murderous violence, how does that religion claim to be a philosophy or practice of “peace”?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Australian has more on Bangladesh’s way with atheist bloggers:

Of his part in the gruesome ­machete murder on Monday of a Bangladeshi blogger — the ­second in five weeks — Jikrullah, a 20-year-old madrassa student offered only this as explanation: “I stabbed him because he humiliated my Prophet”.

In a country at war with itself over whether to identify first as a nation of Bengalis or as a Muslim state, that — it seems — for many is explanation enough.

Jikrullah made an eight-hour road trip from Chittagong in ­Bangladesh’s south east corner on Sunday to join two other seminary students in the Monday attack on Washiqur Rahman…

Because Rahman “humiliated” a man who’s been dead for 14 centuries. Humans your petty little passions and devotions aren’t worth killing people over. I love sunsets, but I don’t get to kill people who prefer to watch tv.

For many Bangladeshi writers Rahman’s death, five weeks after a similar fatal attack on blogger Avijit Roy, is a terminal blow to free speech in a country that fought a brutal war with Pakistan for the right to independence and a secular constitution.

Bangladeshi feminist writer Taslima Nasreen, forced into exile in 1994 over death threats following the publication of her book Lajja and now living in New Delhi, posted a series of angry tweets in the hours after his death including gruesome pictures of Rahman’s body, lying in a pool of blood where he was felled.

“Look how Islamists killed free thinker Washiqur Rahman Babu. Islamists claim ‘Islam is a religion of peace’,” she tweeted.

She knows they would do that to her if they could.

More than 100 people have been killed in recent clashes ­between supporters of the nominally secular government under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her Bangladesh Awami Party and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, led by Khaleda Zia who boycotted last year’s general elections and has since called for fresh elections to be held.

But an editorial in the Dhaka Tribune said the latest murders fit a pattern of attacks over the past decade in which “15 academics and writers had been murdered in similar circumstances … for their views on religion”, and warned more would follow unless the ­government ended a culture of impunity for those who “praise threaten or incite violence”.

“Failure to do so only emboldens individuals who are minded to carry out such acts,” it said.

But they also don’t mind being executed, because they think they’re going to paradise.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A piece of good news.

Petition Update · VICTORY FOR GHONCHEH #FreeGhoncheh · Change.org

Iman Ghavami

London, United Kingdom

Iman Ghavami

London, United Kingdom
Mar 31, 2015 — I have big news for you.

Today I can tell you that Ghoncheh is free! As we were celebrating Iranian New year, Iranian Government wiped out the rest of my sister’s sentence. Ghoncheh will not have to spend another day, another hour in prison.

This is amazing news and I wanted you to hear from me directly. You stood by us during those difficult months. You gave my family courage and hope. The uncertainty of autumn and the dark clouds of winter have gone. And the sun once again is shining for my family. Spring is here.

My mum has finally become her old happy self and has found peace again. My mum and I will not forget your generous support and thank you sincerely. Together we brought Ghoncheh home. Ghoncheh also asked me to thank you all for your support.

This has been the best spring for my family. Hopefully this spring brings happiness and peace to all Iranians and all of you.

Iman

I have no idea if the petition had anything to do with it or not, but who cares; it’s good news.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

About those low numbers of women in STEM fields. It’s a pipeline problem, right – more recruiting will fix it? Or it’s not a problem at all, it’s just what women choose, because they want to Spend More Time With The Kids. Right?

Not according to Joan C. Williams.

Several new studies add to the growing body of evidence that documents the role of gender bias in driving women out of science careers. A 2012 randomized, double-blind study gave science faculty at research-intensive universities the application materials of a fictitious student randomly assigned a male or female name, and found that both male and female faculty rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hirable than the woman with identical application materials. A 2014 study found that both men and women were twice as likely to hire a man for a job that required math.

That can’t be right, because that’s political correctness run mad. All sane people know that there is no gender bias any more. Just ask Christina Hoff Sommers, she’ll tell you.

We conducted in-depth interviews with 60 female scientists and surveyed 557 female scientists, both with help from the Association for Women in Science. These studies provide an important picture of how gender bias plays out in everyday workplace interactions. My previous research has shown that there are four major patterns of bias women face at work. This new study emphasizes that women of color experience these to different degrees, and in different ways. Black women also face a fifth type of bias.

Pattern 1: Prove-it-Again. Two-thirds of the women interviewed, and two-thirds of the women surveyed, reported having to prove themselves over and over again – their successes discounted, their expertise questioned. “People just assume you’re not going to be able to cut it,” a statistician told us, in a typical comment. Black women were considerably more likely than other women to report having to deal with this type of bias; three-fourths of black women did. (And few Asian-American women felt that the stereotype of Asian-Americans as good at science helped them; that stereotype may well chiefly benefit Asian-American men.)

Guess what the next one is. We were just talking about it. It’s that too quiet-too loud thing. That you can’t win; that you’re too girly and too ungirly both at once.

Pattern 2: The Tightrope. Women need to behave in masculine ways in order to be seen as competent—but women are expected to be feminine. So women find themselves walking a tightrope between being seen as too feminine to be competent, and too masculine to be likable. More than a third (34.1%) of scientists surveyed reported feeling pressure to play a traditionally feminine role, with Asian Americans (40.9%) more likely than other groups of women to report this. About half of the scientists we surveyed (53.0%) reported backlash for displaying stereotypically “masculine” behaviors like speaking their minds directly or being decisive.

“I’ve gotten remarks like, ‘I didn’t expect someone Indian…and female to be like this,” said a micro-biologist. An astrophysicist told us she’d had to “damp down” her ambition and “become as amiable as possible,” going as far as to hide prizes and media attention. On the other hand, if women are assertive, direct, outspoken, or competitive, they may face dislike or even ostracism. “I’m pretty aggressive,” said a Latina bioengineer. “I find that both men and women…are going to immediately call [you a] witch. I’d use another word but it would be rude.”

I get that a lot.

And there are other patterns, including ones that especially affect women of color.

It’s so tempting the attribute the paucity of women in STEM to pipeline problems or personal choices. But it’s time to listen to women scientists: they think the issue’s gender bias, and an increasing amount of research supports that view.

Or, they could just listen to Christina Hoff Sommers.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

News Asia reports on the water shortage in Taiwan.

Taiwan will further tighten water supply as the island is suffering from its worst ever drought. Starting April 1, Taiwan will cut water supply in the northern Xinbei and Taoyuan cities for two days a week. Nearly 3 million people are expected to be affected.

Taiwanese Premier Mao Chi Kuo said: “Based on what the Central Weather Bureau has told me, this is probably the worst drought in Taiwan’s history.” Taiwan started a second phase of water rationing in February by restricting supply to industrial users by 5% in nine cities and counties.

But the efforts have failed to ease the drought as water levels for major reservoirs across the island continue to hit new lows. For instance, Shihmen Reservoir – a key to water supply in northern Taiwan – now has less than 44 million tons of water, which could run out in 40 days without rain.

Drought is really frightening. Drought means crop failures, and crop failures mean famine and war. Drought also means death from not enough water to drink.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Lynn Paltrow on the implications of the conviction of Purvi Patel.

The prosecution and verdict in this case demonstrate that, despite their claims to the contrary, the real result of the anti-abortion movement —if not the intended goal—is to punish women for terminating pregnancies.

The anti-choice movement’s long-term strategy goes beyond just limiting access to abortion. It also includes passing feticide laws that recognize fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as having a separate legal status and creates special penalties for causing them harm.¹

As historian and legal scholar Reva B. Siegel has documented, many “pro-life” activists promote anti-abortion measures as “women-protective,” ensuring “women’s informed consent, women’s health, women’s welfare, and women’s freedom.”² Feticide laws fall into this category: They are presented as a means of protecting both pregnant women and their “unborn” children, and they have overwhelmingly been introduced in the wake of violence against pregnant women. No Indiana law, including its feticide law, has ever been proposed and enacted that claimed it could or should be used as a basis for prosecuting and incarcerating women who have abortions. ³

And yet, that’s exactly what happened.

The feticide charge was based on the claim that Patel “did knowingly terminate a human pregnancy, to wit: her own pregnancy, by ingesting medication,” and that this conduct was not a legal abortion performed in accordance with Indiana abortion law.⁶

To many observers, it was a shocking new application of Indiana’s feticide law, which was intended to criminalize “knowing or intentional termination of another’s pregnancy.”⁷ Turning this law into one that can be used to punish a woman who herself has an abortion is an extraordinary expansion of the scope and intention of the state’s law. Nevertheless, a jury convicted Patel on both the feticide and neglect charges; she now faces as many as 70 years in prison.

Even though abortion is legal.

The outcome of this case is noteworthy and alarming for another reason as well. It directly contradicts the repeated claims of anti-abortion leaders that their efforts will not lead to punishing women. Several years ago, 17 anti-choice leaders participated in an online symposium hosted by the conservative magazine National Review, addressing the question of whether there should be “jail time for women who seek abortions.”²³ Overwhelmingly the writers assured readers that this was not their goal and moreover, that it would never happen.²⁴ One of the contributors, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national anti-choice group Susan B. Anthony List, argued that fears of women being prosecuted and jailed were just a pro-choice tactic to malign abortion opponents. ²⁵

It will never happen. It will never never happen. Except when it does.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)