California to teach gay history

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law a bill requiring California to teach gay history to its students:

“History should be honest,” Brown, a Democrat serving his second stint as California governor, said in a written statement released by his office.

The measure won final passage from the state legislature earlier this month when it passed on a 49-25 party-line vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

“This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books,” Brown said. “It represents an important step forward for our state.

The law also requires that public schools teach the contributions of Pacific Islanders and the disabled.

California already mandates that schools include historical accomplishments by Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans and European Americans.

Of course, probably everyone who voted for it did so out of as much of an agenda as those who voted against it. One group wants to help minorities rise up while the other is fearful that their kids might catch gay. Or something like that. Either way, I don’t think those should be the biggest concerns here for either side. Instead, I think what matters is, is this good history? And will this distract from broader themes that ought to be basic knowledge for every American?

What I have often found in my work as well as general interaction with teenagers and kids is that there is a surprising level of ignorance about history. I don’t mean the sort of ignorance currently popular amongst the Bachmanns and Palins of the world. I mean the sort of ignorance that is indicative of a complete lack of familiarity with the subject. And this extends beyond anecdote. Polls of adults and tests of students show we don’t know as much as we should.

So the issue here, I think, is how much can we include in these lessons? I don’t think adding the accomplishments of Harvey Milk to the curriculum is going to take away from talking about bigger historical issues like Reconstruction or the Great Depression, but it is worth considering what is worthy of required inclusion. As interesting as so many historical issues may be, the fact is there is a time limit to these lessons and priorities need to be set. I do support this law, but I do so with some caution.

Horror story for the day

Shudder:

A Southern California woman was in jail Wednesday after allegedly drugging her husband, cutting off his penis, throwing it into the garbage disposal and turning it on, Orange County police said.

Catherine Kieu Becker put a drug or poison in her husband’s dinner Monday evening to make him sleepy, according to the initial police investigation.

Your feminism has nothing to do with my atheism

To top things off in the elevator non-incident that feminists and PZ Myers blew out of proportion, PZ has said this:

Comments closed here, because I’ve put up with enough of the hysterical delusions of people offended by calm, nuanced, proportionate statements. It’s like the responses to those mild bus signs like “You can be good without god” that leave some people profoundly and irrationally upset. We’ve now found an analog: “guys, don’t do that.”

Nobody was offended by proportionate statements, you pissant little liar. They were offended that you and your ilk called every member of a diverse group sexist, misogynistic, and women-haters. I thought lying was below Myers, but when it comes to upping his cred amongst feminists, nothing is below him.

Oh, and drawing an analogy between atheist signs and this non-incident? Aside from the fact that Myers and others have already lied and acted like it has been “teh menz” who have made this into a big deal, feminism has nothing to do with atheism. Nothing. I’m tired of him thinking he can associate the two subjects. But then, this borders on philosophy. And as we’ve seen, Myers is to philosophy as creationists are to science.

How do believers still not get what atheism is?

Some schmo of whom I’ve never heard, Be Scofield, has an article about 5 Myths Atheists Believe About Religion. He actually just lists points of disagreement, semantics, and his own inaccurate characterizations. Greta Christina takes him apart rather systematically on all that, but I want to focus on one thing he said in his assertion that atheists believe atheism is synonymous with being anti-religious:

This false belief stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism and religion are. Atheism is not in any way shape or form related to an opinion about religion. It is simply the assertion that god does not exist, nothing more and nothing less. Religion is a broad category that encompasses traditions which include supernatural belief and those that do not.

He starts out okay: atheism is not related to opinions about religion. Unfortunately, he veers off the road in his very next sentence when he purports that atheism bears a relation to positive claims. It doesn’t. For the nth time, atheism is descriptive. I’m so tired of people saying otherwise that at this point I have to conclude that people like Scofield are either extremely ignorant, extremely stupid, or extremely dishonest.

Just consider this simple thought experiment: If I ask you to finish this sentence, can you? “I am an atheist, therefore I believe…” What would you say? You can tell me what I don’t believe, sure. You can say I don’t believe there are any gods and you would be correct. But if you switch the sentence around and say I believe there are no gods, you have profoundly changed the sentence. Here’s why.

I don’t believe there are any gods” tells you about an absence of belief I have. One can play semantics and claim this is itself a belief, but such a claim would be trivial. All I have told you is that I do not hold a certain belief. That does not mean I think the belief is itself false – though I may for reasons unrelated to atheism.

“I believe there are no gods” implies certainty and is a positive claim. But very few atheists ever make such a claim, and when they do, they aren’t doing so out of atheism. After all, is there evidence against gods? Perhaps we can trace the origins of particular gods back to mistaken and sometimes dishonest scribes, and that will give us strong suspicion, but that is only good circumstantial evidence. It isn’t proof. And if we’re talking about more nebulous, general concepts of gods, then we’re simply stuck trying to prove a negative. It isn’t going to happen and this is why atheists tend to not make these sort of positive claims.

That said, it may well be the case that atheists make claims in practical language. “There is no god” is a common statement made with such practicality. While it is ultimately backed with skepticism and a demand for evidence, that doesn’t make for such a good slogan. Furthermore, it wouldn’t be very pragmatic to begin every discussion about gods with an explanation such as this one. Atheists such as Dawkins, Coyne, Hitchens, the blogging community, myself and others recognize this and turn to simplified rhetoric in order to get broader – and certainly more important – points across. But that does not excuse Scofield for inaccurately defining atheism when his entire premise rested on that definition itself.

The elevator thing again?

PZ has insisted on rehashing the elevator incident one more time. Now he has two more things to be wrong about:

Let’s stop the shouting that Richard Dawkins is some kind of raving misogynist. What’s happened here is that he is at some remove from all of the details, and this issue got blown up by lunatics who felt their manhood threatened and who exaggerated the situation to an absurd degree. I think he is wrong, but what he was arguing against was a cartoon of feminism which far too many people have been peddling on the blogs.

No one is about to doubt the intelligence of PZ Myers, but to be such a condescending little prick to someone like Richard Dawkins is risible. Dawkins is not “at some remove” from anything. He had access to the video. He used details provided in that video when he wrote about it. If he’s short on any detail it’s only insofar as everyone else who wasn’t on that elevator is short on detail. Including PZ.

The second place where PZ is wrong is where he pretends that it’s been those who disagree with Rebecca Watson that have been blowing this out of proportion. Go take a look at the comments on all the blogs, including Pharyngula. It hasn’t been the dissent that started drawing connections with rape and deep-seated misogyny. No, what has happened here is that everyone except caricature feminists has been saying that the elevator guy made a bad move, he should have been paying better attention, but we don’t know what his intentions were. It would be no surprise if he hoped for something sexual, but all he did was ask Watson for coffee in his room, which was in the general direction they were already heading. As Dawkins said, “zero bad” happened here.

What I find really interesting about this is PZ’s defense of Dawkins. If any non-celebrity male said the exact same thing, there would be zero defense from PZ. And he knows it. If anything, he would join in the chorus of feminists who portray those who disagree with the Designated Feminist Position as women haters who are against first and second wave feminism. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is that sort of reaction – and we all know it’s a common one – that leads to Internet feminists being seen as caricatures. This isn’t some big crazy patriarchal conspiracy. (No, really, I swear. It isn’t my penis talking.) Overreacting to minor situations (or even non-situations, as is the case here) is why so many third wave feminists get portrayed as cartoons.

You can’t blame this one on men.

Thought of the day

When a young child is throwing a fit or just getting restless, parents will often say, “Oh, she’s just tired.” For reasons unknown, parents seemingly make a point of saying this in front of the child. The predictable result is that the kid gets all the more cranky, throwing an ever increasing fit. Now I’m not a parent, but this strikes me as really, really, really friggin’ dumb. Maybe there isn’t anything the parent can say to remedy the situation, but come on. Aside from being rather condescending, announcing to everyone that your child is tired has never made anything better. Quit being idiots, parents.

Hold your horses

People like fast things. Our amusement park rides zip on their tracks. We jump from planes for fun. Our video games have names like Need for Speed. We’re even willing to watch bad movies so long as they’re called Speed. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t value in taking things at a pace reminiscent of the olden days. Sometimes we like to slow things down. Sometimes we like to take the time to smell the roses. And sometimes bloggers will engage in hackneyed stock expressions, both in title and content, in order to slowly build up a contrast between quickness and slowness.

As I’ve explained in the past, Richard Lenski is running a 20+ year evolutionary experiment with E. coli. He has published some fantastic results (much to the chagrin of overwhelmed creationists), and now his lab has utilized his bacterial lineages to further probe how evolution works.

[Co-author Tim] Cooper and his colleagues looked at two Escherichia coli clone lineages, sampled after 500, 1,000 and 1,500 generations of evolution. They came from a long-term bacterial evolution experiment running in the lab.

By looking for the presence of five beneficial mutations, the researchers found that ‘hare’ bacteria had more advantageous genetic changes than ‘tortoises’ after 500 generations, suggesting they were more likely to go on to successfully survive and reproduce, and to eventually wipe out their competitors altogether.

The terms “hare” and “tortoise” refer to the speed with which each group experienced mutation. The more quickly mutating group would change so rapidly that it was unable to achieve the same beneficial mutations as the more slowly mutating group. Here’s how I like to think of it.

In the late 90’s, several children were treated with gene therapy for various diseases. This is when a virus is used as a vector for a gene that has the ability (hopefully) to correct whatever is wrong with the child. It’s how researchers cured color blindness in monkeys in 2009. Basically, a gene is missing, resulting in some malady. When the virus is inserted, so is the missing gene. This usually helps or fixes the given problem. However, in a number of the children from the 90’s, insertional mutagenesis occurred. This is where the inserted gene causes a mutation (for reasons we can skip). In these cases, it caused a downstream mutation. The result was leukemia years after the fact.

The reason I’m seemingly rambling is that it was a complex interaction of genes that caused the cancer. It happens often enough that one gene is mutated and it is the loss of function of that gene that causes cancer, but that wasn’t the case in the 90’s. Think of mosquito genocide. Ultimately it’s all such a complex question that the specific results cannot be known ahead of time.

The reason Lenski’s lab found that the slower mutating group of E. coli out-competed the faster group was because the faster group had too many changes. The high number of mutations prevented it from obtaining other certain mutations. A change in one location can have long-reaching implications for future change in another location, in a way superficially similar to that of children from the 90’s, it turns out; it isn’t the case that just any gene can jump into a genome or population and be beneficial, or even work.

This research is important because it is generally assumed that high mutational rate means high evolvability. And that is still going to remain the assumption. But this gives factual credence to the idea that genetic background matters in a very deep way. In fact, Lenski’s earlier work with the same E. coli demonstrated that mutations themselves can be very much contingent. What this all means is that life doesn’t proceed with a single ‘strategy’. High mutation rates have their advantages, but just the same so do lower rates. It’s like driving through the city versus walking through the city. Plenty can be seen and much ground can be covered by car, sure, but a stroll by foot reveals doors and windows and alleys and other things that otherwise could have gone unnoticed.

Mosquito genocide

Whenever I find myself under attack by mosquitoes, I will tend to remark to another person how much I would enjoy a mosquito genocide. Sure, a midge and/or horsefly genocide would be lovely as well – not to mention a whole host of other insect holocausts – but it’s the mosquito I really hate. I mean hate. I would eat raw onions and celery for the rest of my life if I could do away with the little bastards.

The natural response I get from people when I express my desire for mosquito eradication is, “Wouldn’t that really mess up the food chain?” I respond, half-jokingly, that I’m willing to make that sacrifice. Of course, along with most other people, I have always believed that the death of all mosquitoes, or at least the ones that bite humans, would have long-reaching ecological ramifications. And, again, along with most other people, I naturally don’t want to see that happen. But as it turns out, maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all:

Most mosquito-eating birds would probably switch to other insects that, post-mosquitoes, might emerge in large numbers to take their place. Other insectivores might not miss them at all: bats feed mostly on moths, and less than 2% of their gut content is mosquitoes. “If you’re expending energy,” says medical entomologist Janet McAllister of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Fort Collins, Colorado, “are you going to eat the 22-ounce filet-mignon moth or the 6-ounce hamburger mosquito?”

With many options on the menu, it seems that most insect-eaters would not go hungry in a mosquito-free world. There is not enough evidence of ecosystem disruption here to give the eradicators pause for thought.

At this point in the evolution of life, any significant hole left open by one species will quickly be filled by another. Even when the world has seen mass extinctions, life has been quick to fill in the gaps. And that’s with broad gaps. The loss of mosquitoes would be a very narrow niche to cover.

But there are other mosquito-reliant organisms. The question, however, is, how reliant are they? Mosquitoes make up a lot of the biomass in both aquatic and summer arctic environments. In aquatic environments it’s their larvae that contribute to the ecosystem, bringing about greater variation in other organisms while also producing nutrients for plants. In the arctic, they are food for migratory birds. But in both cases other organisms could easily take their place. Though mosquitoes have co-evolved with so many other species, so have so many other insects and microorganisms. They aren’t unique except in their high level of annoyance.

Attempts at Genocide

When the French attempted to build a canal in Panama, one of their major setbacks was disease carried by mosquitoes. It wasn’t until shortly after they started construction that it was even known that mosquitoes were vectors for diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. And even then, it wouldn’t be for some time – about when the French gave up – that it was known just how much mosquitoes could spread disease.

Enter the Americans.

When the U.S. set to construct the canal, measures were taken to drastically cut down on the mosquito population in the area. Standing pools and ponds of water were drained near construction and living areas. High grasses were cut down to create fields mosquitoes were less likely to cross. Oils were added to difficult to drain ponds. Acids and caustic sodas were even spread in great quantity. And what effect did this have on the ecology of the surrounding area? Apparently none. (At least none as a result of the loss of the mosquito.) Of course, this wasn’t an eradication, and it didn’t impact all areas, but it was a massive effort and the mosquito population was reduced significantly.

So could we do something like that, but for all mosquitoes, in all areas? Probably not. Many places in the South have programs where standing buckets of water and other common mosquito breeding grounds are destroyed. Other places spread sprays which kill mosquito larvae. These methods help, but they aren’t enough to fix the problem. And in all likelihood, there are no practical methods available that could bring about the Great Mosquito Genocide. Really, I trust that if humans could get rid of this pest, we would have long, long, long ago.

But don’t let our inability to destroy these little bastards take anything away from the dream of mass mosquito murder:

“They don’t occupy an unassailable niche in the environment,” says entomologist Joe Conlon, of the American Mosquito Control Association in Jacksonville, Florida. “If we eradicated them tomorrow, the ecosystems where they are active will hiccup and then get on with life. Something better or worse would take over.”

Laquetta Robinson is a good person

I hate when people invade the privacy of sports figures. It’s one thing if we’re talking about finding out what Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds did with steroids – they made it a public matter by playing while pumped – but it’s another thing to invade the life of, say, Tiger Woods. At most we should know general facts that pertain to his physical well being (and specifics, should he choose to divulge them), but nothing more. It just isn’t anyone’s business.

I have the same sentiment in relation to Michael Jordon. He recently had a love letter from his younger years (1980) released to the public. I haven’t read it and I never will. However, I did just read a story that gave the impression in its description that a woman was going to sue Jordan over the letter. That I found interesting. But as it turns out, it isn’t Jordan the woman wants to sue:

“I see my letter and I’m thinking, what in the world?” Laquetta Robinson asked. She says her high school sweetheart, Jordan, wrote the letter to her nearly 30 years ago. She says she thought the letter was in her possession. […]

She suspects a family member took the letter and sold it to the auction house.

“It was mine, it was personal, it was private,” Robinson added. “And for them to take something that belonged to me and to capitalize off of it, without my knowledge, without my permission, it really upsets me.”

So this is ultimately a family or friend situation, depending on just who swiped the letter, but that isn’t what’s notable here. What matters, at least to me, is what Robinson said of Jordan:

That’s why she’s vowing to take legal action against the person who stole the items, but first she wants to set the record straight with Jordan.

“More than anything, I wouldn’t want Michael to think that I did it [sold the letter] cause I wouldn’t want him to think that I would betray him in this way,” Robinson continued.

I hope Jordan appreciates this. I know I do.

Thought of the day

I know there is no benevolent god out there because people still put raw onions and celery in things I would otherwise like to eat.