Big Dublin-explore this morning.. Where did I go, you don’t ask. Let’s see…

Through the back gate to Trinity College to the far (west) side, to College Green and Dame Street and Lord Edward Street. (Funny the way the streets get a new name every few yards or meters). Along the north side of Christ Church cathedral, down the hill to the Liffey, along the south bank to the next bridge and across, along the north bank to the next bridge and cross back, up to St Audouen’s church, to the castle for a look at the courtyard, to the spectacular St George’s Street shopping arcade…

To a modern version of that near Stephen’s Green, like Joseph Paxton but with bigger clocks. (Clocks, I said. There’s a gigantic clock on the third floor, with two different faces. I want it.

To Stephen’s Green, to Iveagh Gardens, through Stephen’s Green (yes, again) past Merrion Square to here.

Now for chapter 2. This pesky cold is making me want to laze, but I can laze on the plane, so

…onward.

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

The conference finished yesterday. In the meantime, during the night between Saturday and Sunday, the cold passed on to me by the two lavishly sneezing coughing guys who sat next to me on the plane made itself known; I felt crappy all of yesterday and coughed enough for ten people. Oddly, though, it’s much better today. (But thanks, guys on the plane. Thanks a lot. Thanks for never properly covering your coughs and sneezes during the ten hours of that flight. Thanks for never giving a thought to the people trapped an inch away from you for ten hours. You’re real pigs, both of you.)

[pause to cough]

For dessert last night we went to a comedy bar for a show by Kate Smurthwaite, which was brilliant.

Before that I had tea with Marie-Therese in the hotel restaurant/bar. It was terrific to meet her at last, after all these years.

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

I was on a panel this morning, so now that’s over. I thought it was terrific (leaving my part aside). Clare Daly TD is someone you want on your side and part of government! She’s a pistol.

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

I’m here.

Took a quick walk through Merrion Square, then Stephen’s Green. Two swans with eight cygnets in the latter.

Jane Donnelly picked up Maryam and me at the airport. Good times.

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

I’m at Schiphol. I survived! Mind you I expect to get very ill, because the guys on each side of me coughed and sneezed all over me for 10 hours.

I like the airbus though. There’s a nice little passage in the back where if things are quiet you can stand and exercise and stretch. I did that twice.

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

In this matriarchal culture where jokes about rape are simply forbidden…

Brave heroes each…and every one of you. [salutes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjWd9eJbIGI

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

I leave for the airport in under three hours. I keep vaguely thinking I should be doing preparing things, but they’re mostly done really. I’m neurotic about travel.

It’s raining here. I keep thinking I should take a hoody because rain, but I don’t want to. I’m neurotic about packing.

It will get quiet here while I’m on the road, because I won’t have time (or Wifi) to post much. You guys should make this a nice coffee house thread to discuss all the things, so that you don’t get lonely for each other.

You could discuss

• travel
• places you’ve never been to that you want to be to
• how to endure ten hours on a plane in an inside seat in the inside aisle
• what food to pack in what quantity
• crime and punishment
• feminism and its allies and its wannabe allies who are actually more interested in their own standing as allies than they are in feminism or the status of women
• how to frame questions as passive-aggressive shots
• the Bechdel test
• the role of the Catholic church in US healthcare
• the role of the Catholic church in Ireland
• goats

That’s not an exhaustive list, just a place to start.

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

Sensibly, a Lothian (Scotland) NHS board decided to stop funding homeopathy yesterday.

Homeopaths are fighting back.

The British Homeopathic Association (BHA), which claimed the controversial 
alternative medicine had been the victim of a “hate campaign”, today refused to rule out a challenge in the courts.

The organisation believes the removal of clinics, used by around 500 people a year in the region, constitutes a “major service change” and is therefore a decision for the Scottish Government, rather than NHS Lothian.

However, other groups expressed delight that the service had been cut, calling the decision a victory for “evidence over superstition”, and said the BHA should “shut up”.

Shut up and listen? Or just shut up.

I kid, I kid.

The group’s chairman, John Cook, said: “[The] consultation failed to listen to actual patient feedback in the form of general correspondence and feedback at public meetings, instead concentrating only on the flawed online survey which was hijacked by people outside of Lothian who campaign against homeopathy.”

Health board sources claimed the Scottish Health Council has advised that the removal of homeopathy would not constitute a “major service change” and that NHS Lothian was therefore entitled to take the decision.

Keir Hardie, president of Edinburgh Skeptics, backed the NHS Lothian board and ridiculed the prospect of a legal challenge. He said: “The ­evidence has spoken, the service users have spoken and frankly it is probably time for the BHA to shut up.”

Um…not Keir Hardie, actually. That’s someone quite different. Keir Liddle is the Keir they want.

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

A guest post by Torcant Torcant

Warning: it’s a horror.

Husband’s family gathered to discuss the problem and decided that they should kill the bride, and the husband should do it. The husband summoned his wife to the family gathering and stabbed her multiple times in front of his father, mother and brother. Then the men loaded her dead body to their car and buried somewhere, while the mother cleaned up the blood in the house.

The news story says that later “The husband felt remorse and he turned himself in to the police” but I highly doubt it. There must be something else going on.

The guy, the brother and the father are under detention now. The mother is at home, still scrubbing!

The link to the news story in Turkish: http://www.sabah.com.tr/Yasam/2013/06/26/yirmi-gunluk-kocasi-oldurdu-ailesi-izledi

Turkish media do not publish such stories in English!

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

Wired has a nice amusing interview with Richard Dawkins. They asked him about comment moderation at RDF the website.

I’m afraid the internet is filled with people using really very intemperate language. I’m in favour of ridicule, but not abuse and I think we do a pretty good job on RichardDawkins.net of controlling the abuse.

Part of the problem all over the internet is anonymity. Because people are anonymous they would say things to other people that they would never dream of saying to their face and would never dream of saying if they had to sign their own name to it. But if you call yourself Tinky Winky or something no one knows who you are or where you are.

Exactly, and what that means is that you can say any horrible thing you like and suffer no real life consequences at all. People keep saying yes but a nym can build up a reputation over time so there can be consequences. Please. The consequences are not of the same kind or weight.

What do you think about the fact that many modern atheists see atheism as part of their identity?

I didn’t know that was the case. It’s undoubtedly true that many religious people see their religion as part of their identity, but I thought atheists were largely free of that.

Really? Good lord. That seems quite inattentive.

Do you still stand by the “Dear Muslima” comments you made about Rebecca Watson?

I’m not saying anything about her.

When was the last time you changed your mind about something?

I’ve changed my mind in science.

Ah.

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

A court in Burma found two Muslim women guilty of setting off a recent outbreak of sectarian violence, which seems a tiny bit suspect given that it’s usually Muslims who are the victims of sectarian violence in Burma.

Myint Thein of the pro-government National Unity Party, who attended their trial, said Wednesday that the two women in the central township of Okkan were convicted of “insulting religion.” Both were sentenced to two years in prison with hard labor.

Sigh. Has it all, doesn’t it. Minority religion. Women. “Insulting religion.” Two years. Hard labor.

Although the vast majority of victims of the Buddhist-Muslim violence in the past year have been Muslims, most of those convicted of serious offenses in the unrest have been Muslims. Rights groups have argued that Myanmar’s courts are biased in favor of the Buddhist majority. The two women’s trial was related to an April 30 episode in Okkan that culminated with Buddhist mobs destroying shops and homes in several villages. Myint Thein said the court heard that one of the women bumped into the monk as he was collecting alms and the other grabbed the monk by his shoulders. It is considered inappropriate in Buddhism for women to have any physical contact with monks.

So inappropriate that it merits two years in prison with hard labor.

Humans. So good at getting it wrong.

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

Even though the Republicans in the Texas Senate tried their best to cheat, the bill still failed.

The final outcome took several hours to sort out.

Initially, Republicans insisted the vote started before the midnight deadline and passed the bill that Democrats spent the day trying to kill. But after official computer records and printouts of the voting record showed the vote took place Wednesday, and then were changed to read Tuesday, senators retreated into a private meeting to reach a conclusion.

At 3 a.m., Dewhurst emerged from the meeting still insisting the 19-10 vote was in time, but said, “with all the ruckus and noise going on, I couldn’t sign the bill” and declared it dead.

Still insisting the vote was in time despite what the pesky record showed. Self-justification much?

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

Yeah. It’s in the Washington Post, right nearby, so it must be true.

The Supreme Court Wednesday struck down as unconstitutional the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married in the states where they reside.

The decision was 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court’s liberals to form the majority. It did not address the question of whether there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriages.

But the court said it violated equal protection to provide benefits to heterosexual couples while denying them to gay couples in the 12 states plus the District of Columbia where same-sex couples may marry.

Now this is good:

“DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,” Kennedy wrote.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”

That’s good. I like that. On the one hand, the State sought to protect a set of people in personhood and dignity; on the other hand, DOMA sought to disparage and to injure that set of people. The people behind DOMA tried to pretend there was a legitimate purpose but that was bullshit.

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

David Robert Grimes takes a beady-eyed look at the way theocrats distort scientific research to support their opposition to things.

The abortion debate provides numerous examples of such contrivances. In this paper recently, Breda O’Brien  brandished a study by Ferguson et al (2013) and claimed abortion damages women. However, her championing of this study is textbook cherry-picking that fails to withstand even a cursory examination.

The scientific consensus is that abortion does not damage mental health, a conclusion supported by volumes of meticulous research and recently reiterated in high-quality major reviews by the Royal College of Psychiatrists (2011) and Johns Hopkins University (2008). Ferguson himself has expressed dismay at pro-life groups using this study, calling this use “misleading”.

More dubious still was last September’s “Dublin declaration”, a statement insisting abortion is never necessary to save the life of a mother. Yet even a cursory inspection reveals this is simply not true. Pregnancy is not risk-free and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists states: “Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman.”

Quite a thing to lie about, isn’t it. Yes, Savita Halappanavar merely imagined she was dead, and Praveen and her parents only imagine she’s gone.

David Quinn of the Iona Institute spoke against gay marriage in front of the constitutional committee. Ostensibly citing research from Child Trends (2002), Quinn claimed children fared best with biological parents and gay parents were not good for children. Yet the first page of the study he quotes states: “ . . . neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified . . . therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents”.

Evidence to date
Quinn is simply wrong. Numerous studies have since found zero difference in parenting between heterosexual and same-sex couples. The American Psychological Association states “ . . . the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth”.

God hates people who don’t tell lies, apparently.

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

I’m still thinking about dissonance theory and self-justification and how it relates to quarrels and feuds and rifts.

I’m wondering if it does me any good at all (in terms of avoiding some of the cognitive dissonance and thus some of the self-justification) that I actually don’t think of myself as an easy person to get along with. I’m well aware that I can be irritable, rude, and sometimes worse. It doesn’t rock my view of myself to realize that I’ve been obnoxious.

Tavris and Aronson address that, on page 199 of Mistakes Were Made, but they do it in an odd way.

Who do you imagine would be most likely to blame the victim: perpetrators who think highly of themselves and have strong feelings of self-worth, or those who are insecure and have low self-worth?

Hang on! Why put it that way? Why not say “those with a more realistic self-evaluation?

People who “think highly of themselves” are shits. Come on now. We’re human beings, we’re flawed, there’s a limit to how highly we ought to think of ourselves.

I don’t think it’s “insecure” to be aware of one’s own faults. I think it’s rational and reflective and sensible.

Dissonance theory makes the non-obvious prediction that it will be the former. For people who have low self-esteem, treating others badly or going along mindlessly with what others tell them to do is not terribly dissonant with their self-concept. Moreover, they are more likely to be self-deprecating and modest, because they don’t think they are especially wonderful. It is the people who think the most of themselves who, if they cause someone pain, must convince themselves that the other guy is a rat.

Well, right, so let’s not call that “insecure” and “having low self-worth” – let’s call it a reasonable self-assessment.

It’s Dunning-Kruger all over again. There’s such a thing as thinking too well of oneself, and it causes more harms than just irritating conceit (but that’s bad enough).

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

She started this morning.

At 11:18 this morning, State Senator Wendy Davis took to the floor of the Texas State Senate, beginning a filibuster that Democrats hope will stop the passage of a bill that targets abortion rights in the state. Senator Davis wore pink tennis shoes, ready for the almost 13 hours she must continue speaking to keep Republicans from calling for a vote.

She can’t sit down. She can’t leave to pee.

That makes Senator Davis a lonely combatant in the War on Women. She alone must continue to speak until midnight tonight, when the 30 day special session will expire, along with the abortion bill. Senator Davis says she plans to read the stories of women and their doctors who would be adversely affected by the new restrictions into the record.

The Dems chose her because she was a teenage mother herself.

Strength to your sword arm voice, legs, and bladder, Senator!

Update: the livestream.

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

It’s a press release, which several people have published already.

On Friday, Point of Inquiry’s two co-hosts—Indre Viskontas and Chris Mooney—resigned from their positions at the Center for Inquiry. On Monday, Point of Inquiry producer Adam Isaak followed suit. This note is to explain our reasons for departing CFI and our future plans.

In May of 2013, when the Women in Secularism II conference took place in Washington, D.C., Point of Inquiry—the flagship podcast of the Center for Inquiry—was more successful that it has ever been. Following a format change in 2010, our audience has increased by 60 percent and our growth rate has doubled in the last year and a half. We’d recently done a highly successful live show featuring Steven Pinker before a packed room at the 2013 American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, and interviewed guests like Oliver Sacks, Jared Diamond, Paul Krugman, and Mary Roach. We had started to incorporate new, successful video content. 2013 featured our most listened-to show ever and we were averaging well over 2 million total downloads per year.

Then came the events at that conference—including a widely criticized speech by Center for Inquiry President & CEO Ronald Lindsay. Lindsay then went further, writing a blog post which referred to a post by one of his critics—Rebecca Watson—as follows: “It may be the most intellectually dishonest piece of writing since the last communique issued by North Korea.”

In response to public criticism of Lindsay’s speech and blog post, CFI’s Board of Directors issued an ambiguous statement regretting the controversy, but going no further than that.

These actions have generated much discussion, criticism and polarization within our community. In addition, they created an environment at CFI that made it very difficult for our producer, Adam Isaak, to continue working there.

We, like others, welcome Lindsay’s recent apology. That apology, however, was not followed by any direct effort to retain Chris or Indre, nor did it make up for the very real toll this controversy has taken upon our podcast and our ability to produce it.

The actions of Lindsay and the Board have made it overwhelmingly difficult for us to continue in our goal to provide thoughtful and compelling content, including coverage of feminist issues, as in past interviews with guests like Amanda Marcotte, Katha Pollitt, MG Lord, and Carol Tavris.

The Center for Inquiry has supported us in the past and has asked Chris and Indre to speak at many of its conferences. We are thankful for that.  But we’re a team and we do this together. We believe that this controversy has impaired our ability to produce the highest quality podcast under the auspices of CFI and that our talents will be put to better use elsewhere.

To that end, we are in the process of formalizing a new podcast that will allow us to continue to provide the in-depth interviews with leading intellectuals that made Point of Inquiry such a success. We’ll announce the name and more details about the new podcast shortly but as of right now, we can already announce something we’re all incredibly excited about: the new show will be produced in collaboration with the nonprofit news organization Mother Jones. You can follow @MotherJones on Twitter to get the latest updates on the show’s official launch. We all look forward to turning our attention to the work at hand, and leaving this controversy behind.

Adam Isaak, Indre Viskontas, and Chris Mooney

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

The scope of the FGM problem is appalling to contemplate. It’s huge, and hidden, and implacably hard to deal with.

More than 70 women and girls in Britain seek treatment every month after undergoing female genital mutilation (FGM), with the actual number subjected to the illegal practice likely to be far higher, figures reveal.

The NSPCC is launching a helpline on Monday to protect children from FGM after research found that more than 1,700 victims were referred to specialist clinics in the past two years, likely to be a fraction of the true figure for women affected. The youngest victim was seven.

That’s just within Britain. It’s much worse elsewhere, obviously.

“The UK’s child victims of female genital mutilation are hidden behind a wall of silence. Like other forms of abuse, if female genital mutilation is not exposed it will continue to thrive and more children will suffer,” she said.

Harker said children who were victims of FGM or at risk often did not know it was abusive and harmful, because it was being done at the behest of their family. “They are told they are unclean and immoral if they are not ‘cut’ and that it is in their best interest,” she said. “There is also a huge pressure within these communities to keep quiet about female genital mutilation, with some people even being threatened with violence if they speak out. This is why we believe a dedicated helpline with specially trained child protection advisers is needed to help overcome the difficulties in protecting children from such a complex and secretive form of abuse.”

It’s done when they’re very young. Very young children believe what they’re told. If they’re told their genitals are dirty, they’ll believe it.

Efua Dorkenoo, advocacy director of the FGM Programme at Equality Now – which alongside anti-FGM organisation Daughters of Eve is providing training for the helpline – has worked in the field for more than two decades and called the new move a “sea change in attitudes towards FGM”. She said: “For the first time in this country we are giving a voice to the young people from these communities who have not been able to speak out. The government, the police and health professionals have been frightened and this is bringing it out into the open at last.”

The NSPCC gathered information from the past two years from six clinics in England which specialise in helping victims of FGM; however, there are currently 14 clinics that provide treatment for FGM but data is not collected for children who go to hospital or doctors, nor the children who never have contact with the authorities. “This is not a small problem, it is hidden,” said Dorkenoo.

She added that in some African, Asian and Middle Eastern communities – including but not exclusive to Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Kenya, Liberia and Sierra Leone – 90% of female children were subjected to FGM and that the figure was likely to be similar for girls living within those communities in the UK.

Not small, but hidden.

Contact the 24-hour helpline at 0800 028 3550 or at fgmhelp@nspcc.org.uk.

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

Let’s talk about mumbling and muttering.

I mean – lsss tbb mmmmmnmmmmmmmnga.

Too many actors mumble their way through their lines, neither enunciating nor projecting words clearly enough for audiences to understand them, according to leading figures in theatre.

Edward Kemp, artistic director of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (Rada) and actress Imogen Stubbs are infuriated by the mutterers, who they believe let down playwrights and audiences. Kemp said that some directors and producers encouraged mumbling, believing that “laidback mumbling is more truthful”.

Well sometimes it is, but you don’t want it to be so “truthful” that no one can understand it. Think Brando in the cab with Steiger. “You shoulda looked out for me a liddle bit.” “Truthful” but still clear.

Or, for a counter-example, think Ira Glass. He’s a great producer but he’s a wretched radio-speaker because he mumbles, and it drives me nuts. You’re on the radio, dammit, it’s your job, you’re a professional – why do you keep saying “Itsis Merican Life” when you should be saying “it’s This American Life”? He sounds like a teenager who hasn’t broken the mumbling habit yet, but he’s in his 40s.

Stubbs, who has appeared in scores of stage roles, including the part of Sally Bowles in Cabaret and Desdemona in Othello as well as film and television dramas, added that muttering – with its lack of variety and tonal interest – was perhaps a misguided attempt to imitate American film stars. “It was so drummed into us at drama school that ‘it’s unforgiveable not to be clear and heard’,” she said.

Hmm. Maybe, but the tv genre where I have the most trouble making out what the actors are saying is imported cop shows from the UK. Maybe that’s because they too are trying to imitate US movie stars, but still – they can be astonishingly inaudible. It’s not accents, I’m familiar with the accents, it’s mumbling, hypermumbling such that you can’t make out syllables, it’s just a blur of sound.

The problem is so serious that Kemp fears “plays of language” – including works by Shakespeare, Wilde, Coward and Pinter – could eventually become so opaque that audiences will stay away. Already, he said, “we are on a knife-edge with Restoration comedy … It’s hard to find people who can teach and direct it”.

Rada – whose alumni include Peter O’Toole, Vivien Leigh and Ralph Fiennes and which today attracts 3,000 applicants a year for 28 places – had to scrap its long-standing sight-reading test of a Dickens passage from its auditions because it was “so painful” to hear.

Ok, new hobby for me – reading Dickens aloud.

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