– “An Ode to the Mangina”, Womanist Musings
[...]
Republicans may learn they can’t appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.
And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.
This could be huge.
– Gloria Steinem, “Wrong Woman, Wrong Message”
What happens when you give a girl a chance? She can change her community and her life.
Learn how to contribute at GirlEffect.org.
(via Laurie, Servant of Chaos)
This week’s Friday Leftovers will not be appearing, because I have not been on the Internet for the past week. I will have worked six out of seven days, either at the hospital or the store, and so far, I had always come home exhausted. (You’d be surprised how tiring it is to follow a medical professional around.) So this week, I’m taking a very needed break. I’ll have a set of interesting links and news again next Friday.
But in case you missed the news, California overturns gay marriage ban. Go California for taking another step towards equality.
I, too, sing America.
I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.
Tomorrow,
I’ll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody’ll dare
Say to me,
“Eat in the kitchen,”
Then.
Besides,
They’ll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed–
I, too, am America.
– Langston Hughes
Today, citizens in Pennsylvania will go to the polls, the result of which will most likely decide the Democratic presidential candidate. Last week, the Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama could have changed the tone of the campaign had they participated in ScienceDebate 2008 but apparently they had better things to do. (Half this debate was also spent on trivial issues.)
At the Wall Street Journal, David Baltimore and Ahmen Zewail, two leading Nobel Prize scientists, clearly lay out why it is important to discuss science in politics:
That’s embarrassing as well as shortsighted. We need to re-energize our commitment to being the world’s leader in science and technology. We can start doing that by doing a few things:
We need a president who moves science back into the White House. Today we do not have a presidential science adviser and there is no office of science in the White House.
Our government needs to treat science honestly. When the world’s scientists flag global warming as a threat to our way of life, it is a warning that should be taken seriously. Stewardship of the planet is our responsibility. No one else is going to do it for us.
We need to fund ACI and double the National Science Foundation’s budget for basic research. The government should fund science at a level that will ensure that the U.S. stays in a leadership position in areas like biotechnology, military preparedness, electronics and communication. We need to pay special attention to health research.
We also need to encourage young people to become educated about scientific issues, regardless of whether they become scientists.
So true. I hope that science—and other important issues—become more discussed over the next few months. We need to talk less about Obama’s lapel and more about education and environment, research and economy. These are the issues that matter to us, to the people.
Maybe they don ‘t see much benefit in participating. Maybe they think they already have the science vote. Maybe they don’t know enough (or have those talking points ready) to debate the issues. Regardless, they are making a strong statement when they don’t participate.
Further Reading
(via Laurie, The Intersection)
As a regular reader of ScienceBlogs, I know all about Expelled, Ben Stein’s new film about how educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief in intelligent design. Expelled contains misinformation about science education and evolutionary science, and clearly promotes the teaching of intelligent design in the science classroom. Since its release on April 18th, the film has received poor reviews, and rebuttals from the online science communities. Overall, the film has received much negative attention.
So far, I’ve stayed away from this bit of media news. I’m no fan of intelligent design—since it is just another form of creationism and the subject should be left for philosophy or theology, not science—but I was hoping (and I should know better) that the film will open and pass without much of a blip on the media radar.
Obviously, I was wrong. The film opened as one of the top ten at the box office, and reviews have appeared all over the Internet. What really caught my attention, however, was that an NPR podcast had advertised for the movie.
Yes, you read that correctly. NPR published a podcast—specifically the April 7th show of On Health—that advertised for the production company that created Expelled. I couldn’t believe it. All is far in love and media, but give some thought to what you are saying when you link yourself to creationist propaganda.
Don’t only link heavily to the rebuttals. Write e-mails to websites, radio stations, any media outlet that promotes this film. Tell them what they are inadvertently (or not) supporting. The purpose of media is to elucidate, and when media advertise films that purposely obscure information, one can only wonder what else they can be hiding.
 |
