To the Editor, Washington Post:
Over the past two weeks, there has been a civil rights battle brewing in Iowa, and Post readers have been denied coverage of this important news. The Des Moines Area Rapid Transit authority first posted, then removed, then reposted ads on the sides of buses that read “Don’t Believe in God, You’re Not Alone.” The ads were sponsored by the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers, and complaints came from right wing Christians religious groups. Iowa’s governor professed to be “personally disturbed” by the ads.
Yet an exhaustive search of the Post’s online archive I conducted today reveals not a word about this incident. Atheists, like all Americans, enjoy the freedom of (and from) religion and the freedom of speech as explicitly protected in our Constitution. Their ads should be just as welcome on the side of a bus as an ad for the Crystal Cathedral, or for the latest Ferragamo shoe. The Washington Post should also be covering discrimination against atheists, wherever it occurs, just as you routinely cover other kinds of racial and religious discrimination. Shame on you for not doing so.
Sincerely,
Philip L. H
Monday, August 10, 2009
Defending Civil Rights - My Latest Letter to the Washington Post
Today I sent the following Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post about the Post's complete lack of coverage of the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers bus ad controversy. I've been fortunate to have two Letters to the Editor published previously, so I'm hoping this one makes the cut. I'll post any reply I get from them, as well as a link should they publish it. Meanwhile, here's what I wrote:
Friday, August 7, 2009
ATheism - the next big civil rights battle
I’ve been having a discussion today about atheism, and at least one of the discussants really doesn’t like my position. It seems he, and many of the others at Stephanie’s place, have been really abused by their fellow Americans because they do not believe in the Christian God – or any other God for that matter. Because of that intensely personal experience, they are on fire, and have taken me to task as a Moderate Christian, who I think they view as only marginally more useful then a door stop.
It is tough to be called out so forthrightly, and I have to say I am not at all pleased by it. Folks who want to have an equal seat at the table are charging hard at me and telling me I’m art of the problem simply because of one of the many labels I use to describe myself, even though I have not, to my knowledge ever met them in person (much less treated them in a way that would provoke that response). Of course, I am also melancholy about how they’ve been treated, because I see no point in the approach of a fundamentalist in attacking them that way - just as I see no point in racism, sexism, or intolerance to various gender identity and sexuality monakers.
So, rolling all this around, what should I do? I’ve stayed in the fight thus far, in part because I do believe that America as a nation can benefit from a lot more discussion, and a lot less internal warfare. I am also of the belief, based on what I was taught in church, that my response as a Christian needs to be acceptance of everyone, and the extension of as much understanding, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance as I can to those who do not share my beliefs. And, if they are being discriminated against, in any way, I have to stand with them against that discrimination.
So over the next few weeks (but perhaps not regularly) I’ll be returning to the topic of discrimination in America. I hope to focus on it in all forms, racial, gender, religious, marital, housing – you name it. I won’t spend a lot of time looking exhaustively at history, but I want to go deeper into the question and see both what the state of play is on the ground, and what my response is to that.
And to Lou FCD – I am serious about writing that letter.
It is tough to be called out so forthrightly, and I have to say I am not at all pleased by it. Folks who want to have an equal seat at the table are charging hard at me and telling me I’m art of the problem simply because of one of the many labels I use to describe myself, even though I have not, to my knowledge ever met them in person (much less treated them in a way that would provoke that response). Of course, I am also melancholy about how they’ve been treated, because I see no point in the approach of a fundamentalist in attacking them that way - just as I see no point in racism, sexism, or intolerance to various gender identity and sexuality monakers.
So, rolling all this around, what should I do? I’ve stayed in the fight thus far, in part because I do believe that America as a nation can benefit from a lot more discussion, and a lot less internal warfare. I am also of the belief, based on what I was taught in church, that my response as a Christian needs to be acceptance of everyone, and the extension of as much understanding, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance as I can to those who do not share my beliefs. And, if they are being discriminated against, in any way, I have to stand with them against that discrimination.
So over the next few weeks (but perhaps not regularly) I’ll be returning to the topic of discrimination in America. I hope to focus on it in all forms, racial, gender, religious, marital, housing – you name it. I won’t spend a lot of time looking exhaustively at history, but I want to go deeper into the question and see both what the state of play is on the ground, and what my response is to that.
And to Lou FCD – I am serious about writing that letter.
Health Care reform - the Republican Party's Waterloo
When it comes to the health care debate raging in this country, its getting ugly. The back and forth is no longer even remotely civil, and even the doctors are fuming.
So when Steven Pearlstein over at the Washington Post weighs in, I am interested. I am not in agreement with him on a lot of issues, but I think he got it right here:
This, dear readers, is one of the legacies of the divide and conquer Bush administration approach to politics, economics and social justice. And if we ALL continue to act this way, we will bring down the Republic. Not exactly what I want my generation, or my parents’ to be known for in history.
That aside, he fails to say why he thinks Republicans want this failure to occur. I think it is a simple, pernicious reason - they want the economic, social and moral power they thought they had under the Bush Administration back, and they do not care what they do to achieve it. They tasted absolute power for 8 years and it corrupted them.
So when Steven Pearlstein over at the Washington Post weighs in, I am interested. I am not in agreement with him on a lot of issues, but I think he got it right here:
Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.
If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be theirs.
This, dear readers, is one of the legacies of the divide and conquer Bush administration approach to politics, economics and social justice. And if we ALL continue to act this way, we will bring down the Republic. Not exactly what I want my generation, or my parents’ to be known for in history.
That aside, he fails to say why he thinks Republicans want this failure to occur. I think it is a simple, pernicious reason - they want the economic, social and moral power they thought they had under the Bush Administration back, and they do not care what they do to achieve it. They tasted absolute power for 8 years and it corrupted them.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
American Exceptionalism and its negative impact on our world image
I know regular readers are probably tired of me beating the drum that America's government officials, all the way up to the President need to stand accountable in the legal system for their actions, but I'll keep at it. Why you ask, because . . . .
And a little humility wouldn't hurt us either.
The United States is NOT an exceptional country. Despite what so many neocon commentators claim about our superior way of life, the people we elected to lead us made choices that defamed our ideals and trampled on the very notion that we have anything to teach (anymore) about the rule of law. Instead, I think we need to look to others, like Pakistan, and ask what have they done to overcome internal tyrrany. Then we need to apply those lessons here in the U.S.As we send murderous, crusading civilian units around the world to accompany our invading armies -- while ushering a regime of torture wherever we go -- and then announce we will only Look to the Future, Not the Past, when their crimes are exposed (despite our best efforts to keep them concealed), do we actually expect anyone to take these sermons seriously? (H/T Glenn Greenwald)
And a little humility wouldn't hurt us either.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Goldman Sach to Employees - Don't spend it all in one Place!
That Goldman Sachs would actually say this to employees shows just how big a gulf exists between this firm and the rest of the country.
Human garbage in the oceans - two perspectives
First, consider this from CNN about using Stimulus money to remove ghost nets in Puget Sound.
I have along personal interest in this, as this is a project that I was affiliated with while working in Seattle several years ago. Interestingly, the story fails to mention two important factors. First, the stimulus fund in question came from the NOAA Fisheries Service Office of Habitat Conservation, and second, the Army Corps of Engineers has been leading a similar effort for some time.
Second, the 2009 SEAPLEX expedition to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is now underway. The blog is here. Oh to be young and a grad student again! Seriously, the fate of plastics in the ocean is not to be taken lightly, and as the expedition goes forward, I hope folks will stay tuned.
I have along personal interest in this, as this is a project that I was affiliated with while working in Seattle several years ago. Interestingly, the story fails to mention two important factors. First, the stimulus fund in question came from the NOAA Fisheries Service Office of Habitat Conservation, and second, the Army Corps of Engineers has been leading a similar effort for some time.
Second, the 2009 SEAPLEX expedition to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is now underway. The blog is here. Oh to be young and a grad student again! Seriously, the fate of plastics in the ocean is not to be taken lightly, and as the expedition goes forward, I hope folks will stay tuned.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Vitamin D deficiancy higher in kids, but the WaPo won't help
Today’s online edition of the Washington Post has a great example of how hard it is to communicate science to the public, especially when you operate under the mis-guided notion of a “fair balance” and thus have an need for two sides to a story.
Titled “Millions of Children In U.S. Found to Be Lacking Vitamin D – Links to Diabetes, Heart Disease Examined” seems, at first read, to be a straightforward report that 9% of children don’t have enough Vitamin D in their bodies to ward off a variety of both early and late life diseases. The WaPo authors note that scientists studying this question point to a decline in the consumption of Vitamin D enriched milk, and the lack of outdoor play time as significant causative factors.
Had they left it there, the story would have given parents and doctors something to talk about – how much sunlight does a nine year old Hispanic girl need to make adequate Vitamin D, and how can we help her get it? Why aren’t kids drinking as much fortified milk as before and is this really the best way (nutritionally) to supplement the lack of natural production? These would have been great questions, and great conversations.
Sadly, they aren’t likely to happen if you read the full piece. Ten paragraphs in, after the study and it’s findings are explained we hit this:
Why is this a significant paragraph? Isn’t it just an expression of the uncertainty that is inherent in science? Shouldn’t we do more studies after a finding like this to replicate them?
If you are a scientist, those are sensible responses. But the average reader, looking at the Citations to Authority presented here (i.e. Greer is a University academic who sits on an important panel of doctors who make important recommendations so we’d better listen to him), this is a contradiction to the findings presented in the prior 9 paragraphs. “Joe Sixpack” is thus likely to conclude that, since there is not a “scientific consensus” presented (i.e. the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn’t agree with this finding), he shouldn’t do anything differently, nor should he worry about his kids and whether they have Vitamin D deficiencies.
In addition, the WaPo fails to tell its readers that it’s counter-expert may have a vested interest in further study going a certain direction. If you Google Dr. Greer (who is, thankfully, a pediatric MD); you find this at ProCon.org:
Clearly, Dr. Greer will have to advocate for more milk consumption if the study proves true, and will have to admit his efforts so far have not gone far enough. Even if he were neutral on the subject in his interviews, demanding more study and better numbers is often the tactic of deniers, or those with specific agendas that run counter to the conclusions of study authors.
So what could the Wa Po have done differently in presenting the story? First, I see no reason to have someone on as a counter point to these conclusions. Perhaps the WaPo editors thought that someone urging an ounce of caution before making major life changes was a good idea. Afterall, no use going off half cocked. But given the urgent need for some sort of change (9%) of kids suffering form this is not good) they might have done better to focus on the need for more outdoor play and exercise to increase sun exposure, and the need to increase milk intake. At the very least, they could have suggested talking to your kid’s pediatrician earlier in the article.
The bottom line, for me, is that while science is iterative, and thus never “done” and possessing “conclusions” as most people understand this term, the WaPo did its readers yet another science disservice by implying a need to wait for something more concrete, instead of evaluating your health now, and making better choices. This is why the media are failing so badly in communicating science to the general public.
Titled “Millions of Children In U.S. Found to Be Lacking Vitamin D – Links to Diabetes, Heart Disease Examined” seems, at first read, to be a straightforward report that 9% of children don’t have enough Vitamin D in their bodies to ward off a variety of both early and late life diseases. The WaPo authors note that scientists studying this question point to a decline in the consumption of Vitamin D enriched milk, and the lack of outdoor play time as significant causative factors.
Had they left it there, the story would have given parents and doctors something to talk about – how much sunlight does a nine year old Hispanic girl need to make adequate Vitamin D, and how can we help her get it? Why aren’t kids drinking as much fortified milk as before and is this really the best way (nutritionally) to supplement the lack of natural production? These would have been great questions, and great conversations.
Sadly, they aren’t likely to happen if you read the full piece. Ten paragraphs in, after the study and it’s findings are explained we hit this:
"The bottom line is that these numbers are interesting," said Frank R. Greer of
the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who served on a panel that recently
doubled the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations for daily Vitamin D
intake. "But I'm not ready to make a great hue and cry until we have more data.
I think we should use them for further research to determine their
significance."
Why is this a significant paragraph? Isn’t it just an expression of the uncertainty that is inherent in science? Shouldn’t we do more studies after a finding like this to replicate them?
If you are a scientist, those are sensible responses. But the average reader, looking at the Citations to Authority presented here (i.e. Greer is a University academic who sits on an important panel of doctors who make important recommendations so we’d better listen to him), this is a contradiction to the findings presented in the prior 9 paragraphs. “Joe Sixpack” is thus likely to conclude that, since there is not a “scientific consensus” presented (i.e. the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn’t agree with this finding), he shouldn’t do anything differently, nor should he worry about his kids and whether they have Vitamin D deficiencies.
In addition, the WaPo fails to tell its readers that it’s counter-expert may have a vested interest in further study going a certain direction. If you Google Dr. Greer (who is, thankfully, a pediatric MD); you find this at ProCon.org:
Position: Pro to the question "Is drinking milk healthy for
humans?"
Reasoning: "Milk is one of the richest dietary sources of calcium and vitamin D, critical for building strong bones in kids and teens, and providing the best defense against developing osteoporosis later in life. While calcium supplements and non-dairy foods such as calcium-fortified beverages are an alternative, these products do not offer milk's unique nutrient package."
Clearly, Dr. Greer will have to advocate for more milk consumption if the study proves true, and will have to admit his efforts so far have not gone far enough. Even if he were neutral on the subject in his interviews, demanding more study and better numbers is often the tactic of deniers, or those with specific agendas that run counter to the conclusions of study authors.
So what could the Wa Po have done differently in presenting the story? First, I see no reason to have someone on as a counter point to these conclusions. Perhaps the WaPo editors thought that someone urging an ounce of caution before making major life changes was a good idea. Afterall, no use going off half cocked. But given the urgent need for some sort of change (9%) of kids suffering form this is not good) they might have done better to focus on the need for more outdoor play and exercise to increase sun exposure, and the need to increase milk intake. At the very least, they could have suggested talking to your kid’s pediatrician earlier in the article.
The bottom line, for me, is that while science is iterative, and thus never “done” and possessing “conclusions” as most people understand this term, the WaPo did its readers yet another science disservice by implying a need to wait for something more concrete, instead of evaluating your health now, and making better choices. This is why the media are failing so badly in communicating science to the general public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To DC Dispatches HERE
Posts
All Comments