Journal of No. 118

There's been quite the confluence of events. Buzzfeed (don't laugh) ran a deeply researched article about Lawrence Krauss and a number of sexual allegations against him. None violent, but sleazy. Apparently enough to warrant being banned from a couple campuses where he used to work. While I was dimmmmmly aware, for me it was basically internet gossip about someone I don't really know.

I found the article convincing, and icky enough that it bothered me that I remembered that Krauss was a fellow of CSI (nee CSICOP). And I went to the trouble of checking their page of fellows to be sure.

And there are two things that probably made that association leap to my mind. Number one, another Fellow is Benjamin Radford, and he too has been associated with some similar accusations (starting from incidents after a consensual relationship turned sour). Again, I am not the insider here, but I gather that Barry Karr [or maybe Ron Lindsay -- like I said, I'm not an insider] made an investigation, meted out some punishment, and I don't know the ins and outs, other than to say that Radford is still a Fellow, as is his most noteworthy accuser (from where I sit, not being close to any of this). So I feel confident that something was done with at least some semblance of justice. But the episode also pulled additional anonymous whispers out of the ether.

The second thing that probably kept it fresh in my mind was that the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer noted that Susan Gerbic had been made a Fellow. This was surprising, because most of the Fellows are members of the professoriate in disciplines from physics to psychology. And Susan runs the guerrilla skeptics on wikipedia. I mean, if done right, obviously it's to everyone's benefit for Wikipedia to be accurate, and credulous viewpoints need to be countered by skeptical ones. But...

#1: my brief foray into Wikipedia editing convinced me that it takes a certain kind of person to enjoy and win the Wikipedia editing game. And it isn't me. And I'm vaguely suspicious of the people who find themselves at home in that environment.
#2: Susan's common appearances on the Skepticality podcast did not impress me favorably. In addition to her stated work to push an agenda, it was clear she was also generally a shill for conferences and meetings, etc. Some of the things that pushed me away from greater involvement in organized skepticism (it was not enough that I volunteered to be part of the Independent Investigations Group (an organization I helped name) but to stay in, one would be required to take classes for money -- fuck that).
#3: In short, rather than a skeptic, she strikes me more as a True Believer. Our side is right, and this justifies almost anything.
#4: More recently, I see that Susan is essentially defending Radford on his Wiki page (see the Talk) to keep the page clean of talk of the accusation. Now I don't know that it's notable or meets Wikipedia's standards, but it does bother me that it seems that the truth is less important than defending the people in one's camp.

Anyhoo, this had me thinking about CSI having two fairly well documented pervs among its Fellows (and I wasn't so hot about the merger between CFI and the Dawkins Foundation). And so for a long time (when I only knew of one perv) I was reconsidering the bequest in my will to CSICOP. And now there were (at least) two pervs. Now when you look at the list... there are a lot of people I admire, from Susan Blackmore to Daniel Dennett to EC Krupp to Joe Nickell to Bob Park to Eugenie Scott. Maybe two bad eggs isn't too bad a proportion? On the other hand, there's more than enough star power that I really wish they'd get rid of any bad eggs. After appropriate scrutiny.

And then my stepdad died last week. And I read through his will. And I thought a lot more about my own.

And then a miracle... Lawrence Krauss was (at least temporarily) un-Fellowed from CSI. And I note that between looking at the CSI Fellows page a few days ago and now, Susan Gerbic has also vanished from the list, shortly after arriving. This I assume(?) is at her behest.

So we're back down to one perv (that has come to my attention) who served metaphorical time for one incident. All cool?

(Thank lackofgod that pervy Mike Shermer has an entirely separate Skeptic organization for me to shun. It's true, I shunned him for being dumb long before I knew about any pervy accusations, but every little bit helps. Also a shame that James Randi (who gave his name to yet a third skeptic organization) turned a blind eye to Shermer being 'a bad boy on occasion'.)

Seems like I'm down on all the skeptical organizations, but hey it's just some of the people and the organizations that suck. Not the ideas or the truth of the matter. And possibly CFI/CSI has taken a small step to suck less... and can stay in my will.

Swann's auction catalog of Art, Press, & Illustrated books has some pretty unique things.

A curious edition of Flatland, published by the Arion Press, with an introduction by Ray Bradbury. It's printed on 56 accordion folded pages (so you can lay out the whole text... flat) and housed in an aluminum case.



If that's not wacky enough... The Robin Book:



If that's not pretty enough, then how about the Kelmscott Press (William Morris) Works of Chaucer:



If that's not racy enough, imagine having to compose a properly dry auction catalog entry for this:

"An unusual, unexpected, and very erotically graphic publication that touches on all manner of taboos and the employment of otherwise innocent items like pickles."

TIME magazine has a little section with infobits about the different income segments of the US. The different income tiers are:

Households earning $200K+ ("The 5%")
$100K-$199K (The 17%)
$60K-$99K (The 22%)
$30K-$59K (The 26%)
<$30K (The 30%)

So there's little factoids like the percent of each group that smokes:

12% (<-- I assume the bump is for big fat Cuban cigars lit by flaming $100 bills.)
10%
15%
20%
28%

But I was most struck by the data about the children of these different households.
Average SAT scores of the kids of those households

1151
1094
1036
987
897

(Before you go all Social Darwinist on this, the 5% can afford pretty good tutors. I remember when I was trying to finally weed off that last client. I couldn't raise my prices enough to make them stop calling me.)

Perhaps the more surprising one was Percent of their children who have had sex by age 16.

32%
41%
46%
54%
61%

This post has been a long time coming. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it's particularly good, informative, or insightful.

jimhines' cartoon has been flying around recently:


While this was about science fiction cons, it applies perfectly well to atheist/skeptic/secular cons. That community has had some recent high-profile incidents, and some longer simmering arguments. I've been mostly watching from the sidelines; not because I don't care, but because I haven't been directly involved. I haven't been to any of these conventions. I don't really know the people involved, and certainly have no knowledge of the actual incidents. So I didn't think I had much to add other than a huge chance of foot-in-mouth disease.

( essentialsaltes more than likely puts his foot in his mouth somewhere in here )

American Patriarchy Association: Todd Akin is 'Absolutely Right'

The good news is that story about Egypt passing, or wanting to pass, a law allowing men to have sex with their dead wives is baloney.

The other good news is that female genital mutilation has been illegal in Egypt since 2008.

The other other good news is that rates of FGM are falling in Egypt.

The not so good news is that the rate started at more than 90%. Among girls aged 10-14, the rate in 2010 was 66% and among girls 15-17, it's 75% [n.d.]. It's not the kind of thing that stops overnight, so let's hope the trend continues.

Took a survey from ebay. Looks like they may be considering providing packaging/shipping materials to sellers, and/or setting up package dropoffs at local locations [the survey mentioned Starbucks by name as an example].

---

I was thinking that our various circumlocutions for the genitalia are primarily used as terms of opprobium. You don't want to be a prick, a dick or a cock. Nor a cunt, twat, or pussy. Maybe we should foster a sex-positive genital endearment for popular use. But what should they be? Cunny may be too close to the C-word, even if it sounds like honey, which would seem to be a natural advantage. Twatwaffle sounds like it should be a good thing, but it's a bad thing. We may have to resurrect and take back something like quim.
The male side is even worse. No lack of options, but things like 'womb ferret' or 'heat-seaking moisture missile' really are just not suitable. Peener seems to have the requisite cuteness. Giggle stick? Package may have the right feel: "Bob's a prick, but Rob's quite the package."
Opinions? Other than that this idea of mine is far less than half-baked?

---

I was thinking [yeah, see where that got me last time] that the [primarily Christian fundagelical] antiscience advocates complain that a failing of science is that it's bedeviled by progress change. One day, a fossil is a hominid; the next day, it's a peccary.
And yet... when we look at the Bible, one day you can't eat bacon, the next day you can. One day you circumcise, the next you don't. One day it's an eye for an eye, the next day it's "Ye have heard that it hath been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth': But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Which would seem to take the sting out of their criticism.
But this idea is also less than half-baked since it's not likely to impress these critics of science, since they've had it hammered into them that their god's nature is unchanging, and the NT is the same as (or fulfillment of) the OT.
Anyway, that was my second lousy thought of the day. You're welcome.

---

Oh, and while I'm blathering, I was looking into the No Religious Test clause, as one does, and found something kinda neat. Although the US Constitution forbade religious tests for office, many of the individual states had such tests at that time.
Ben Franklin unsuccessfully fought against the religious test added to the Pennsylvania constitution. Part of his motivation may well have been his realization that he couldn't pass the test, as it required belief in the divine inspiration of the (complete) Bible.
Fortunately, it only applied to the PA Assembly, so there was no bar to him becoming president/governor of the state and working to amend the religious test to something less restrictive (to merely "acknowledge[] the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishments").
Ultimately, of course, the 14th Amendment provided a de facto end to state religious tests, though some are still on the books.

Dan asked his readers to write to some of the school officials involved in the prom debacle.
( So I did. )