Showing posts with label articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label articles. Show all posts

Monday, January 23, 2012

On Math.

I'm admittedly not the biggest fan of the Huffington Post, but you know, they're not all bad. Anyway, saw this article this morning.

I've been bad at math since about fourth grade. "Bad" is relative: on recent intelligence tests (I'll explain in a blog post soon), even my weaknesses measure at or above average. So "bad" at math isn't really that bad. But I'm still not great. However, finding out that I might be genetically inclined not to understand fractals and long division makes the grieving process (for my future as a geneticist or forensic scientist) much easier. Okay, so there's not really any proof of the gender gap, but I'm going to run with it:  Damn you, double-X chromosomes and breasts! (Hah, mark this as the first time they've actually gotten in my way.)

Math Gender Gap Not Result of Girls' Low Self-Esteem, Researchers Say

First Posted: 1/19/12 09:47 AM ET Updated: 1/19/12 09:48 AM ET



Are girls bad at math? From a talking Barbie doll saying "Math class is tough" to Larry Summers, the ex-President of Harvard University, speaking on the "different availability of aptitude," it's an issue that's seen plenty of controversy. As one of the most sensitive topics in education today, there's plenty of research on it, and even a body of research on the research.

A study to be published in Review of General Psychology, falls into the latter category. Its authors, David Geary of the University of Missouri and Giljsbert Stoet of the University of Leeds, find that if a gender gap in math test scores exists, it isn't a manifestation of the so-called "stereotype threat" theory, as many researchers seem to believe.

According to that theory, girls tend to perform worse on tests after they've been told they'll do poorly. Geary and Stoet found that past studies relying on the theory were flawed and lacking real evidence. This suggests that if girls are scoring worse than boys on standardized math tests, it's not because of their low self esteem.
In other words, don't blame ditzy Barbie.
The new finding suggests that it might make sense to scale back social programs designed to counter the stereotype threat. As Geary noted:
“The stereotype theory really was adopted by psychologists and policy makers around the world as the final word, with the idea that eliminating the stereotype could eliminate the gender gap...However, even with many programs established to address the issue, the problem continued. We now believe the wrong problem is being addressed.”
Geary and Stoat make no contention about the gender gap itself. Their study makes a strong case for ruling out a self esteem-based explanation of the gender gap, but an increasing number of scientists believe the gender gap is illusory in the first place.
Recent years have brought mounting evidence against the idea that, other things being equal, women are worse at math than men. A 2011 study published in Psychological Bulletin found evidence of gender gaps in various countries, but noted that in some countries, such as Jordan and Bahrain, girls had the edge.

Friday, January 20, 2012

On Obama's Awesomeness for Today

Yay! I love this:


Victory! Obama Stands Up to Bishops and Protects Birth Control Coverage

January 20, 2012 by  · Leave a Comment



Great news! Despite months of fierce lobbying by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Obama administration announced today that it would not exempt Catholic hospitals from the Affordable Care Act requirement for insurance plans to cover employees’ birth control. The news, which comes on the first day of Trust Women Week, is a welcome victory for feminists.
Back in November, feminists were concerned that President Obama might cave in to the Bishops’ pressure to exempt religious institutions. If the Bishops had their way, it would have meant that organizations that aren’t actual churches–such as colleges, universities and hospitals–would get out of covering birth control in insurance plans for their students and employees, despite an HHS ruling last August that birth control constitutes preventive care and should be covered with no copay. Feminists–including Feminist Majority President (and Ms. publisher) Eleanor Smeal–have loudly urged the administration not to let Catholic Bishops deny no-cost birth control coverage to millions. Here is Smeal’s response to today’s announcement:
At last—concern for women’s health trumps pressure from the Catholic Bishops. Millions of women who may have been denied access to birth control with no co-pays or deductibles will now have full access. I am especially pleased that college students at religiously affiliated institutions will now have coverage for birth control without co-pays or deductibles under their school health plans beginning in August 2012.
Birth control is the number one prescription drug for women ages 18 to 44 years. Right now, the average woman has to pay $50 per month for 30 years for birth control. No wonder many low-income women have had to forgo regular use of birth control and half of US pregnancies are unplanned. This decision will help millions of women and their families.
Some religious institutions will be given a one-year extension–from August 2012 to August 2013–to implement the no-fee coverage. Here are the details of the ruling:
  • Insurance plans that already cover birth control, including those of religious institutions, must do so with no co-pays or deductibles starting August 2012
  • All student insurance plans at religiously affiliated universities must cover contraception with no co-pays or deductibles beginning August 2012
  • Non-profit religious institutions that do not currently cover contraception have until August 2013 to do so with no co-pays or deductibles
  • Only women who work directly for a house of worship, such as for a church, synagogue, or mosque itself, are exempted from this required coverage
Photo of President Obama from Flickr user lednichenkoolga under Creative Commons 2.0

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

On Ron Paul.



I get made fun of a lot for sometimes really liking Ron Paul. (Emphasis on the "sometimes.")

I really wish he was better at stuff I really care about, like abortion (he thinks it should be up to the states to decide...which sort of pisses me off, but then again, it's not like Colorado is going to go bat-shit crazy and pass any sort of "moment of conception" law any time soon, so I probably don't have to emigrate yet). Again, I personally wouldn't consider abortion but I'm so in love with birth control (which means I'll never need an abortion because I don't have to worry about accidental pregnancy because I've got smart plans in place - not that I'm having sex, of course), and my IUD, and my freedom to take the morning after pill if I need to that I refuse to let that pro-life/pro-choice issue go. My body does not belong to the dude I'm sleeping next to and it most certainly doesn't belong to any of the concerned right-wingers determined to re-instill their own brand of family values all over America. (Side note: all I can think of when I think of the fact that some people want to ban birth control is the thought of having to feed like 7 kids on my current salary and then the eventual prolapse of my woman parts. Sounds like misery and welfare.) 

I will be pro-choice until the day that I die. 

Also, I don't know that you can really deny people health care. I mean, we do a really good job of that anyway. I agree that the system is broken, but I don't know that free-marketing (totally a word now, right?) the healthcare system is the best choice. Meh. However, considering how much time I spend fighting with my own health insurance....

Whatever. For all his crazy, Ron Paul is one consistent man. And right now, we sort of need that. Either that, or Obama should grow a pair and start doing some serious asserting, which I fully support. Be the man, Obama! Tell everyone to shut up and start doing some work!
The yellow highlighting in the story below is all mine. Because that's why I wanted to post this to my blog anyway. Why the hell do more people not agree with this sentiment? 

Seriously, America, wtf? You freak out on Iran for developing nuclear weapons, you invade Iraq under that same pretense, but it's totally cool if we have tons of them stockpiled? Because, wait, the "sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is providing deterrence for itself and its allies." Oh, my bad. I totally forgot how awesome at being hypocrites we are. 

But I digress....


How Crazy is Ron Paul Right Now? Volume I

ron paul 1-17.jpgRon Paul's our favorite non-conformist nutball, even when he gets carried away and starts to non-conform against his own agenda. Sometimes he seems like the only guy in the Republican primary not trying to win Sarah Palin's endorsement; other times it's like he's been up for six days straight, surfing the fringiest corners of the Internet and collecting paranoias. Here, in a recurring feature on Death Race, we parse the Paulisms so you don't have to.
What Ron Paul Said: "If another country does to us what we do to others, we're not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a Golden Rule in foreign policy. Don't do to other nations what we don't want happening to us. We endlessly bomb these countries and then we wonder why they get upset with us?"—Jan 16, 2012, at a Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
Public reaction: Prolonged booing from the audience.
Our take: This is one of the least crazy things that Ron Paul has been booed for. Paul's application of an ancient maxim in lieu of a more nuanced take on international affairs may seem a little obtuse. But it's grounded by about four decades of expensive, ill-fated meddling on behalf of the United States. Also, it's worth remembering that this is the same race in which Rick Santorum has continually declared war on Iran and Rick Perry declared that NATO ally Turkey was run by "Islamic terrorists." So: Sane by comparison!


http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blogs/death-race/2012/01/how-crazy-is-ron-paul-part-i.html#ixzz1jqdNfOpT

Source: GQ

Friday, January 13, 2012

On more of the Tebow madness....

I thought that this was one of the most interesting articles I've read in the midst of all of this Tebow madness.

I'm neither for nor against him; I'm curious to see how things will all end up.

By the way, if you're in the mood for something awesome, look up Jimmy Fallon's "Tebowie" video. It's Fallon as a Tebow-David Bowie combo and it's amazing.


THURSDAY, JAN 12, 2012 9:30 AM MST

What if Tim Tebow were Muslim?

The NFL star has been praised for his public Christianity. It's been different for athletes who follow Islam

Tim Tebow
Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow (15) prays in the end zone before the start of an NFL football game against the Chicago Bears, Sunday, Dec. 11, 2011, in Denver.  (Credit: AP/Julie Jacobson)
Tim Tebow’s profession of faith has thrust the mixture of sport and religion into the national spotlight in a way that few can remember.
Students have been suspended for “Tebowing” — dropping to one knee to pray, even if you’re the only one doing it — in a school hallway in New York. Rick Perry claimed that he would be the Tim Tebow of the Iowa caucuses. “Saturday Night Live” lampooned Tebow’s fan-boy love for Jesus. In response, Pat Robertson has claimed that the skit demonstrates “anti-Christian bigotry.” His supporters even called for a boycott of HBO after a Bill Maher tweet made fun of Tebow and his relationship to Jesus after his Denver Broncos lost to the Buffalo Bills.
After an overtime upset of the Pittsburgh Steelers last weekend, Tebow’s Broncos play the top-seeded New England Patriots on Saturday. For at least one more media cycle, there will appear to be no way to separate Tim Tebow – the person, the quarterback, the Christian – from his religion.
But back in September, the cultural critic Toure asked a fascinating question in ESPN the Magazine. In a piece called “What if Michael Vick were white?,” Toure argued with those who said the quarterback would not have received a two-year sentence for dogfighting if he was white. Would he have been involved with dogfighting? Would an entourage have led him to the same mistakes? Would he have had a stronger paternal relationship?
So I ask, what if Tim Tebow were Muslim? How would our society react if during every interview, Tebow said “Insha’Allah” or “Allāhu Akbar” rather than thank his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Or instead of falling to one knee and praying,  Tebow pulled out a prayer rug and faced Mecca? A recent study by the Pew Research Center suggests it would not be well received. While American Muslims in general tend be satisfied with their lives and communities in the United States, 55 percent report that being Muslim in the U.S. has become more difficult since Sept. 11. Twenty-eight percent report that people have viewed them with suspicion and 22 percent report having been called offensive names. The TLC show “All-American Muslim” has lost advertisers who were pressured by groups claiming that the show was Islamic propaganda. Yet Pat Robertson claims that the United States is a breeding ground for anti-Christian bigotry.
I don’t have answers to these questions. We can’t know the answers until we are faced with a prominent Muslim athlete who is willing to be so visible with his faith. In a country that consistently prides itself on freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion – we can hope that Muslim athletes who are visible with their faith would find themselves just as revered as Tebow is for his.
But professional Muslim athletes are hard to find. Ahmad Rashād. Rashaan Salaam. Kareem Abdul-Jabaar. Hakeem Olajuwon. Rasheed Wallace. Most of these athletes are retired and went about their religious lives quietly. But it is to that list of retired professionals that we must look to find someone as outspoken about their faith as Tim Tebow – Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf and Muhammad Ali, for example.
In 1990, Chris Jackson was drafted by the Denver Nuggets out of Louisiana State University. In 1991,  Jackson converted to Islam. In 1993, he changed his name to Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf. In 1996,  Abdul-Rauf refused to stand for the national anthem at an NBA game. A religious storm followed.
Everyone had an opinion, from fans to sports writers to radio hosts. Sports Illustrated reported that some people suggested Abdul-Rauf be deported. Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf was born in Mississippi, however, and deportation from Colorado to Mississippi is rare. Two Denver-area radio hosts even walked into a mosque with a stereo playing the Star Spangled Banner. One was wearing a turban. And a Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf T-shirt. While broadcasting live, on air.
Abdul-Rauf claimed in a 2010 interview with HoopsHype.com that “[a]fter the national anthem fiasco, nobody really wanted to touch me.” He played only three more seasons in the NBA before going overseas to play professionally. In that same interview, he discusses how his home in Mississippi was burned down just a few months prior to Sept. 11. He eventually left the state.
So Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf stood up (or in this case, sat down) for his religious beliefs. He made his religion a visible aspect of his life and a visible aspect of his professional basketball career. Just like Tim Tebow. The difference of course being that Tim Tebow was satirized on “Saturday Night Live.” Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf had his home burned down and felt blacklisted from the NBA.
Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf pales in comparison to the outspoken nature of Cassius Clay. In 1964, Cassius Clay announced his membership in the Nation of Islam, and  changed his name to Muhammad Ali. In 1966, Ali spoke out against the draft and became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War based on his religious beliefs. In 1967, Ali was convicted of draft evasion.
But even before his conviction, Ali was causing controversy. Sports Illustrateddubbed Ali the most hated athlete in the world in April 1966. In the same article, Ali’s faith was referred to as being a part of his “fanatically religious side.” Instead of being something to admire, his faith was inconceivable fanaticism. No Christian leader supported Ali’s display of Islamic faith in the same way that Muslim leaders have supported Tebow’s display of Christian faith. Just like Tebow, though, Ali – the person, the boxer, the Muslim – could not be separated from his religion. This was never clearer than in his conscientious objection to the war in Vietnam.
By now, even casual boxing fans are familiar with Ali’s quote “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong … No Viet Cong ever called me nigger.” That one quote made Ali a social activist. And his social activism was based on his faith. Ali claimed that Islam prohibited war unless called for by Allah. That one belief made Ali’s religion a wider social issue. What followed was public outcry. Ali was stripped of his championship belt, had his boxing license suspended, and was convicted of draft evasion. The Supreme Court ultimately overturned it. But for four years, Ali, arguably the greatest boxer of all time, did not fight.
So Muhammad Ali stood up (or in this case, sat out) for his religious beliefs. He made his religion a visible aspect of his life and a visible aspect of his professional boxing career. Just like Tim Tebow 40 years later. Just like Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf 30 years later. Ali was an outspoken proponent of his religion, Islam, but was vilified for his outspoken religious beliefs. His Islamic beliefs.
Again I ask, what if Tim Tebow were Muslim? He’s not. So maybe it doesn’t matter. There is no way to separate the man and the religion. Some people praise him for it, others recoil. When this happens, avid defenders of Tebow invoke freedom of religion. But as Tebowmania makes its way into politics, sports, religion and the everyday life of the mainstream United States, it is important to think about how we approach religion in this country. How we approach religious freedom in this country. Do we accept freedom of religion, any religion? Or do we accept freedom of Christianity?

source: Salon