when this first came up, the crown was heavily criticized for filing the wrong charges - observers across the spectrum agreed that the most likely outcome was for the court to strike down the polygamy laws, allowing the community to continue to exist and even throwing the validity of laws against child marriage into question. there was also concern that the real issue was going to be lost, in the process.
the issue in the minds of most people has never been around the question of polygamy. the real issue has always been related to child abuse, and specifically to underage marriages. this concern is not even mentioned in this terse press release.
i don't care about polygamy between consenting adults. i wouldn't exactly argue that it should be legal; i don't think the state should recognize any concept of marriage at all, and property in common should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. so, what would it mean for me to say polygamy should be legal when i don't think marriage should be legal? but, i certainly don't see any purpose in prosecuting consenting adults.
this community, however, needs to be shut down. and, i can only hope that the correct charges of child abuse, statutory rape and human trafficking are filed very quickly, along with the proper legislation banning underage marriages, should the existing legislation be overturned by proxy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/polygamy-trial-closing-arguments-1.4101033
Friday, May 5, 2017
careful with the reporting in france.
the polling actually says this:
macron ~ 45%
le pen ~ 30%
neither ~ 25%
i'd be surprised if there wasn't a bradley effect at work. and, we all know that low turnout helps le pen, too.
the correct thing or me to say is that i haven't been following the polling closely enough to provide an interesting analysis. but, please read the polls correctly if you're to read them at all.
the polling actually says this:
macron ~ 45%
le pen ~ 30%
neither ~ 25%
i'd be surprised if there wasn't a bradley effect at work. and, we all know that low turnout helps le pen, too.
the correct thing or me to say is that i haven't been following the polling closely enough to provide an interesting analysis. but, please read the polls correctly if you're to read them at all.
at
22:24
if the state is convinced that it is worthwhile to increase diversity amongst scientists, what it needs to do is address the issue at an earlier career stage.
scientists care about one thing: science. if you have a good idea, you have a good idea; if you have good research, you have good research. they don't care about anything else.
so, this idea that people are being denied funds because of their ethnicity is spurious, as it is in contradiction to the purposes of scientific inquiry. you will not find any data that upholds this speculation. physicists are not going to reject a good paper because the person is black, or female or subscribes to some kind of superstition (although they may lament the latter). it's a ridiculous idea, and those that promote it are ridiculous people.
on the other hand, what is worrying about the idea of the state enforcing gender quotas is that it presents the possibility that good research will not get funded because somebody is not the right gender or ethnic type. it is the quota system that has the greater potential of enforcing harmful discrimination. those who push back against this are unfamiliar with the culture within scientific communities, and are instead projecting an ideal that they read in a philosophy course - an ideal that does not hold up to any sort of empirical scrutiny and should be forcefully discarded as pseudo-science.
i mean, it will be the ultimate irony if we end up mutilating our research departments due to the pronouncements of foucauldian pseudo-science.
i think the empirical evidence on the topic is pretty clear: girls don't have the same levels of interest in science that boys do. is that actually a problem? well, i don't think that feminism is supposed to be about forcing girls to be boys. what feminism is supposed to be about is breaking down barriers to opportunity. if, in the end, girls make different choices, so be it. you could disagree with this if you want, i guess. personally, i'd argue that a proportional outcome - which is what we have - is a measure of success. but, to argue that the solution to increasing female involvement in the sciences is enforcing quotas is unquestionably wrong. if you think this is a problem, and you think it should be addressed, then it's the culture that needs to be addressed: the system needs to find a way to fight back against all of the corporate and religious messaging that exists and convince girls that they want to be scientists.
they'd have better luck if they were to create a csi or xfiles like show on the cbc. if you think this needs addressing, that's the level it needs to be addressed on.
scientists care about one thing: science. if you have a good idea, you have a good idea; if you have good research, you have good research. they don't care about anything else.
so, this idea that people are being denied funds because of their ethnicity is spurious, as it is in contradiction to the purposes of scientific inquiry. you will not find any data that upholds this speculation. physicists are not going to reject a good paper because the person is black, or female or subscribes to some kind of superstition (although they may lament the latter). it's a ridiculous idea, and those that promote it are ridiculous people.
on the other hand, what is worrying about the idea of the state enforcing gender quotas is that it presents the possibility that good research will not get funded because somebody is not the right gender or ethnic type. it is the quota system that has the greater potential of enforcing harmful discrimination. those who push back against this are unfamiliar with the culture within scientific communities, and are instead projecting an ideal that they read in a philosophy course - an ideal that does not hold up to any sort of empirical scrutiny and should be forcefully discarded as pseudo-science.
i mean, it will be the ultimate irony if we end up mutilating our research departments due to the pronouncements of foucauldian pseudo-science.
i think the empirical evidence on the topic is pretty clear: girls don't have the same levels of interest in science that boys do. is that actually a problem? well, i don't think that feminism is supposed to be about forcing girls to be boys. what feminism is supposed to be about is breaking down barriers to opportunity. if, in the end, girls make different choices, so be it. you could disagree with this if you want, i guess. personally, i'd argue that a proportional outcome - which is what we have - is a measure of success. but, to argue that the solution to increasing female involvement in the sciences is enforcing quotas is unquestionably wrong. if you think this is a problem, and you think it should be addressed, then it's the culture that needs to be addressed: the system needs to find a way to fight back against all of the corporate and religious messaging that exists and convince girls that they want to be scientists.
they'd have better luck if they were to create a csi or xfiles like show on the cbc. if you think this needs addressing, that's the level it needs to be addressed on.
at
20:54
These findings confirm the presence of an unidentified species of Homo
at the CM site during the last interglacial period (MIS 5e; early late
Pleistocene), indicating that humans with manual dexterity and the
experiential knowledge to use hammerstones and anvils processed mastodon
limb bones for marrow extraction and/or raw material for tool
production.
i wanted to make sure that the publication wasn't presenting this the way that the news reports are.
the bering hypothesis is as good as anything in science, and has extremely strong support in dna evidence. indigenous dna is not very diverse, indicating a small founder population very recently. these results do not challenge this hypothesis, which is virtually unassailable.
what they're saying is that there may have been an unrelated species of hominid - not humans, exactly, but close relatives to humans - in north america, after all.
i have no idea how such a hominid would have ended up in north america, or if it would have been more likely to have been related to neanderthalensis (and hence come from the west) or erectus (and hence come from the east). i do not believe that pre-humans are currently believed to have been capable of purposeful seafaring at such extents, but this is all reconstructive. what i might suggest is that if pre-humans could sail from sunda to san diego, you'd might as well go ahead and call them humans.
but, do not be tricked into thinking that these hominids were related to existing indigenous populations. the research suggests no such thing.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html
i wanted to make sure that the publication wasn't presenting this the way that the news reports are.
the bering hypothesis is as good as anything in science, and has extremely strong support in dna evidence. indigenous dna is not very diverse, indicating a small founder population very recently. these results do not challenge this hypothesis, which is virtually unassailable.
what they're saying is that there may have been an unrelated species of hominid - not humans, exactly, but close relatives to humans - in north america, after all.
i have no idea how such a hominid would have ended up in north america, or if it would have been more likely to have been related to neanderthalensis (and hence come from the west) or erectus (and hence come from the east). i do not believe that pre-humans are currently believed to have been capable of purposeful seafaring at such extents, but this is all reconstructive. what i might suggest is that if pre-humans could sail from sunda to san diego, you'd might as well go ahead and call them humans.
but, do not be tricked into thinking that these hominids were related to existing indigenous populations. the research suggests no such thing.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html
at
20:18
As of December 2016, there were 1,612 filled positions, among which 30
per cent were women. That fits with the fact between 2000 and 2015, 31
per cent of applicants for the jobs were from women.
so, there's no actual issue, then. this is just political interference.
and, in fact, i believe it is potentially an abuse of power.
s. 15 has a clause for affirmative action; it would be farcical to use it in context, even if the numbers weren't proportionally representative.
these kinds of things move in pendulum shifts. the day that you start demanding that scientists fit a gender or ethnic quota is the day the pendulum has swung too far, and needs to swing back. hopefully, the court sees the issue correctly, and is able to properly apply s. 15 to block this political interference and abuse of power. but, we need some brave lawyers to step up, first.
so, there's no actual issue, then. this is just political interference.
and, in fact, i believe it is potentially an abuse of power.
s. 15 has a clause for affirmative action; it would be farcical to use it in context, even if the numbers weren't proportionally representative.
these kinds of things move in pendulum shifts. the day that you start demanding that scientists fit a gender or ethnic quota is the day the pendulum has swung too far, and needs to swing back. hopefully, the court sees the issue correctly, and is able to properly apply s. 15 to block this political interference and abuse of power. but, we need some brave lawyers to step up, first.
at
19:55
ed was always usually right.
this is the right way to do this. but, the current government appears to be further right than mulroney's was, and this will be met with scorn, if it is read at all.
i've said for years that we would have been better off if the liberals had negotiated nafta - we would have still had a nafta, no doubt, but a lot of what's wrong with it would be mitigated, at least. that window has clearly passed, as the new liberals are exactly what the party once fought to protect the country from.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lets-make-human-rights-central-to-a-new-nafta/article34898657/
this is the right way to do this. but, the current government appears to be further right than mulroney's was, and this will be met with scorn, if it is read at all.
i've said for years that we would have been better off if the liberals had negotiated nafta - we would have still had a nafta, no doubt, but a lot of what's wrong with it would be mitigated, at least. that window has clearly passed, as the new liberals are exactly what the party once fought to protect the country from.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lets-make-human-rights-central-to-a-new-nafta/article34898657/
at
19:39
the debate here misses the point: science is not a bureaucracy, and the goal of being a scientist is not in climbing up ladders and chains of hierarchy. almost nobody in any research field sees diversity for the sake of diversity as a desirable end point: this is a contrived ideal, being pushed down from the outside for purely political purposes.
these arguments about resumes and advancement are fine if you're talking about the private sector, but that is not what science is, and it is not a model that fits the purposes of scientific inquiry.
you'd think we shouldn't have to explain this - that it is self-evident, and there is no reaction besides introverted depression, and cynical statements about how embarrassing the whole thing is. but, this is the kind of policy that happens when you put corporations, via government, in charge of science: it becomes distorted to fit the goals of the private sector. given this government's full-throttled embrace of neo-liberalism, it is not surprising for them to try and enforce their ideological leanings in places that do not make sense. a deeper reflection on the implications of the corporatization of research is perhaps required.
but, we will not get this. we will merely suffer the consequences, and leave it to future generations to salvage what is left.
these arguments about resumes and advancement are fine if you're talking about the private sector, but that is not what science is, and it is not a model that fits the purposes of scientific inquiry.
you'd think we shouldn't have to explain this - that it is self-evident, and there is no reaction besides introverted depression, and cynical statements about how embarrassing the whole thing is. but, this is the kind of policy that happens when you put corporations, via government, in charge of science: it becomes distorted to fit the goals of the private sector. given this government's full-throttled embrace of neo-liberalism, it is not surprising for them to try and enforce their ideological leanings in places that do not make sense. a deeper reflection on the implications of the corporatization of research is perhaps required.
but, we will not get this. we will merely suffer the consequences, and leave it to future generations to salvage what is left.
at
19:10
i have a better reason to fire stephen colbert: he's not funny.
what i mean is that stephen colbert is not funny. stephen colbert, on the other hand, was hilarious.
but, i certainly hope that he's about to get strong statements of solidarity from speech activists on the alt-right.
right?
*crickets*
this is a legitimate speech issue. they are rare on this continent. but, the left doesn't do this. speech violations always come from the right.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/05/04/fcc-chair-on-colberts-trump-bash-will-apply-obscenity-law-if-needed.html
what i mean is that stephen colbert is not funny. stephen colbert, on the other hand, was hilarious.
but, i certainly hope that he's about to get strong statements of solidarity from speech activists on the alt-right.
right?
*crickets*
this is a legitimate speech issue. they are rare on this continent. but, the left doesn't do this. speech violations always come from the right.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/05/04/fcc-chair-on-colberts-trump-bash-will-apply-obscenity-law-if-needed.html
at
00:18
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)