Accidental Blogger

My religious manifesto

December 10, 2009
In my recent post on Kathryn Lofton's take on the New Atheists (NAs) and their "misogyny," I dismissed Lofton's arguments on that point as more projection than proof. The post has now been linked at a couple of other blogs where some lengthy discussions have ensued. In one of my comments in response to another reader on the 3 Quarks Daily thread, I described at some length my overall attitude toward the religion vs atheism debate and my view of the NAs. Prasad suggested that the comment could serve as an independent post here to clarify where I stand on both issues. I thought that is a good idea. I will do so and let the post serve as reference point in the future if and when I again feel the need to discuss any other provocative subject in this particular field.

Before I go to the summation, I want to also clarify a couple of other points in the form of questions that may be asked of me:
- Have I for most of my adult life found a reason to live according to the precepts of any organized religion?
- Having rejected religion, am I ignorant of the role religion has played in human history and do I also reject any or all art, music, literature etc. which may have its origin in a religious experience, inspiration or reference?
- Do I as a non-believer find the celebration of joyous religious / cultural events like Christmas, Diwali, Passover or Eid offensive?
- Does the religious belief of others bother me unless it interferes in a negative way with my life?
- When I support a political candidate or a social commentator, does it mean that I agree with him or her about everything including the rules of etiquette they choose to adopt?
The answers to all of the above is "no." Now the manifesto:

The "Ditchens"* don't necessarily speak for me but Cyrus Hall** does. Thanks, Cyrus!

Has Dawkins stopped secretly beating his wife? Has Hitchens? I don't know and frankly I don't care until the police starts to investigate or one of them declares that wife beating is a salutory way of maintaining domestic harmony. Neither Lofton's projections and innuendo about uber-rationality and misogyny nor the paucity of contributions of female writers in Dawkins' tract are enough evidence for me to conclude that he or the other atheists are woman haters. And if it turns out that they are, it will probably have little to do with their rejection of god and belief in scientific enquiry.

Some of the rationalist hand wringing over the strident style of the Ditchens reminds of a somewhat crude joke about liberals I had heard many years ago. The humorist said that liberals are people who when someone else farts in a crowded room, feel compelled to declare loudly that they didn't do it.

Do the Ditchens speak for me? Not all the time. I should speak for myself and I do, whenever I have the opportunity with the little voice I have. I have neither the gusto nor the forum to be heard as widely as the New Atheists do (how about neo-atheists instead of new? that sounds more official and is a nice foil for neo-cons). The core message of what many of the New Atheists wish to convey about the role of religion in society is more or less what I might say myself, but perhaps at a lower decibel. Do I want them to keep speaking and shaking things up? Definitely. My agreement with the New Atheists is limited to the idea of religion and its place in public policy. Their politics or any personal traits they may possess are different matters altogether. I have made myself clear several times on what I think of Hitchens' support of the Iraq war. But now we are getting into the territory of babies and bathwater.

For years and decades, the only voices in the public sphere regarding religion / god etc. have belonged to those with whom I disagree vehemently. The likes of Reverends Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have had the attention of sizable segments of the American public and the ears of several presidents in my time. They have influenced the national conversation and probably public policies as well. Politicians of all stripes have kow towed to them until I have felt like throwing up. No, please don't tell me that they are ignorant louts. All of them were educated with advanced degrees and commanded huge followings. I don't consider myself an intellectual who resides in the rarified towers of ivory where I can only have conversations with like minded people. I have brought up two children in red states, volunteered in schools, the Little League and the Boy Scouts and served in the community as a tutor and political campaigner amidst those who listen to Fox News and believe in the messages of the likes of Falwell and Robertson. Occasionally it has been lonely and frustrating. I also have many religious (some very) friends whose faith defines every aspect of their lives including the outcome of a football game. We get along rather nicely. I grew up with an atheist father and an observant mother in a family whose members were divided roughly equally on both sides of the religious debate and I loved them all. Things were harmonious and never did we as children, feel the pressure to believe in either ideology. So, as Cyrus points out, I am fully cognizant of the simple fact that some people indeed need god and religion in their lives to carry on and others muddle through fine without them. I am not interested in conversion. But I want to be recognized as a part of an often vilified constituency which does not wish to see the law, war, peace, health care and science education defined in religious terms. I want my opinions in these matters to count.

Now at last, my side of the story is being told, albeit by some who come across as agent provocateurs. I wish to have a pony in this race and I would love for a gorgeous, elegant horse to enter the track on my behalf. But that horse is not here yet and hasn't been throughout my lifetime. There however, has appeared a stubborn and bad tempered mule in the form of the Ditchens who crashed the theological party. My two bits worth of betting money is on them for now if only to mix things up at the race course.

*Ditchens = Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett & Christopher Hitchens.

**Cyrus Hall = Another commenter with whom I was in agreement.
A Rogue Book Review (Dean)

December 8, 2009

Stanley Fish is a national treasure. He has managed seemingly effortlessly to review favorably—quite favorably!—Sarah Palin’s book, and with only the slightest hint of irony.

My assessment of the book has nothing to do with the accuracy of its accounts. Some news agencies have fact-checkers poring over every sentence, which would be to the point if the book were a biography, a genre that is judged by the degree to which the factual claims being made can be verified down to the last assertion. “Going Rogue,” however, is an autobiography, and while autobiographers certainly insist that they are telling the truth, the truth the genre promises is the truth about themselves—the kind of persons they are—and even when they are being mendacious or self-serving (and I don’t mean to imply that Palin is either), they are, necessarily, fleshing out that truth. As I remarked in a previous column, autobiographers cannot lie because anything they say will truthfully serve their project, which, again, is not to portray the facts, but to portray themselves.

In one paragraph we are treated to a supremely skilled critical sensibility informed by a life of deep and wide reading. How often has a book reviewer bothered to distinguish biography from autobiography for purposes of adjusting the reader’s expectations? This sort of nuanced hair-splitting usually occurs in dreary literary critical elaborations of “texts” and “intentions,” “rifts,” “abysses,” and “interruptions.” Fish made his scholarly career participating in and engaging those elaborations, not to mention famously impressing and pissing off his audience at once.

That there are readers of this latest column among the comments who just don’t get it is not surprising. (One example: the fellow from Des Moines who fails to recognize that by announcing he doesn’t mean to imply Palin is lying, Fish may be promoting that very thesis.) Sure, it’s hard to swallow the possibility that the book could be at all artful, but Fish does a fair job of explaining how so. He’s a master, a brilliant reader, the craftiest of writers.
Critical thinking may lead to misogyny!

December 6, 2009

Coming from a seemingly intelligent woman, the assertion that logic, rationality and empiricism may be at the root of misogyny, is a bit unsettling. Kathryn Lofton, in her post So you want to be a new atheist, over at The Immanent Frame blog seems to be implying exactly that.

Lofton finds the New Atheists annoying – a bunch of know-it-all loudmouths whose style may be even more obnoxious than the substance they promulgate. She finds them arrogant, cynical, evangelical in their fervor and also curiously enough, perfectionists who want to help people. She however does not consider their social conscience an entirely wholesome trait. Lofton suspects that there is a conquest like quality to their outreach and beneath their desire to help may lurk an intention to persuade. (What a surprise!)

If you want to be a New Atheist, first and foremost, you need to possess an unrelenting desire to help. The desire may seem at times cruel, but you have to start focusing on a higher good: the goal here is to get the cannibals to put down their wafer and wine glass. It’s not for your wellness, but for the good of mankind. As Georgetown University professor John Haught wrote in his diagnosis of the New Atheists, “To know with such certitude that religion is evil, one must first have already surrendered one’s heart and mind to what is unconditionally good.” The New Atheists may wrap themselves in torn one-liners and haggard scientism, but beneath their cynical swaddle there lies a charming Perfectionism.

The main target of Lofton's derision and despair seems to be the comedian Bill Maher and his anti-religion movie, Religulous. It is not that hard to rip apart a stand up comic who opposes organized religion as well as vaccination. But in pointing to Maher's loose lips and fuzzy logic, Lofton also takes a swipe at Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens whose arguments against faith based social and political systems are a little better thought out and substantive. It is perfectly alright for Lofton or anyone else for that matter, to take issue with the tone that many among the so called New Atheists adopt while making their case. But it would better help the cause of the religionists to also point out the flaws in their arguments and not just in their character.

The nature of the conversation between the religious camp and the New Atheists has by now become quite familiar and predictable to those who have been paying some attention. It reminds me of the different agenda that a restaurant critic and a nutritionist bring to the table when talking about food. One focuses on the mouth watering quality of a 16 oz steak, the butter dripping crab legs, the fatty lamb biriyani and the decadent dessert immaculately prepared and presented by expert chefs and polished waiters. The other comes across as an earnest killjoy who urges you to eat your whole grains and veggies and then alarms you by warning that overindulgance in the delicious fare recommended by the gourmet foodie, poses the risk of developing clogged arteries, a sluggish liver, a ravaged kidney and extra pounds around your midriff. And the pleasurable torpor you feel after that rich meal is actually a sign of reduced energy. I have so far not heard a fine food aficionado clash with a nutritionist on the grounds that the latter has a shrill, strident style and wants to deprive others of the joys of feasting. But defenders of religion like Lofton and Karen Armstrong and the not-quite-pro-religion-but-getting-there types like Terry Eagleton invariably attack atheists for their lack of charm, style, empathy and another nebulous quality (I think of it as *mysterianism*) which keeps them from fully appreciating the true nature of religion. In the first part of her article Lofton sticks to that formula. Toward the end however, she introduces a new accusation that I have not until now seen hurled at the new (or old) atheists.

What is religion? The New Atheists reply, with clarion diagnostic consistency: Religion is something that sells you something invisible so you may feel that which you cannot find elsewhere. It is something for which there is insufficient evidence. It is something people do because they have always done it, not because they know how to think about it. Religion is irrational, it is emotional, and it is instinctual. Religion enslaves you with its wiles, then forgets to remove the handcuffs. It is the fortune teller reading entrails, not the captain consulting his compass. It massages and preys and toys and plays and screws you over, time and again, with a promise it won’t keep because of its irrationality and its whimsy. Religion is a know-at-all with no knowledge. It makes “a virtue out of not thinking.” Religion is cutting the hedge repeatedly around an erection. Religion is, it turns out, a lot like a girl.

Religion as effeminacy is nothing new. Nor indeed is the accusation that religion is socially sanctioned lunacy. Treating it as a neurological disorder, however, sets the New Atheists within a long tradition of critical misogyny. Under the guise of protecting your children, in the effort to best serve your sweet flock of idiots, if you want to be a New Atheist you have reclaimed a New Virility to counter your post-industrial emasculation. This virility plays out in demonstrations of protective strength, plowing away at the big two nemeses (Christianity and Islam) in the interest of protecting the little guy. It is also exhibited in grand tours of scientific proof, or plodding expulsions of religious duplicity.

Wait a minute! Have atheists and skeptics ever said that religion is like a girl? (Not that there is anything wrong with being a girl) Or that believing in unverifiable myths for comfort is exclusively a womanly quality? Have atheists refused to admit women into their fold? Do they claim that women are genetically incapable of possessing rational minds? On the other hand, organized religion has diligently kept women out of leadership roles through much of history. So, the charge of misogyny from a defender of "faith" sounds strange.

Unless the New Atheists have categorically called religion a girlish pursuit or religious males girly men, (Lofton does not say that they have) it is plausible that it is Lofton herself who conflates irrationality and emotionalism with feminine traits and critical thinking and reason with manly characteristics. She may have again confused style with substance. After all, the majority of the high profile and vocal atheists in the public square are all males. Most of them also assume a combative stance while arguing their points of view. Even if Lofton considers the New Atheists arrogant, self absorbed and boorish, based on her opinion of their discursive temperaments, where did she get misogyny? Perhaps in her eagerness to condemn, Lofton uses the red herring of misogyny without any supporting evidence because it fits the rest of her perception of the atheists. Are some atheists women haters? Of course. Could there be a few among the ones she names? Possible. But it has nothing to do with critical thinking which does not bar women from becoming practitioners. And what is the score in the department of misogyny on the religious side? Start your count with the priestly class and the orthodox.

Whom does Lofton think she is kidding with her innuendo about misogyny and atheism? It is particularly galling coming from someone who is presumably a spokesperson for religion. The sacred bastion of virility, organized religion, is thickly populated by misogynistic power hungry males and at least in the Abrahamic tradition, god too is a masculine deity whose behavior is akin to that of an old fashioned patriarch - one who protects, smites and slays at whim. Whereas misogyny can often be a product of politics, commerce and other secular cultural traditions, I doubt that women have been more systematically and ritually degraded within the realm of any other human enterprise than that of organized religion. Only religion explicitly sanctions misogyny. Think Adam's Rib, eater of the forbidden fruit, the temptress, the virgin who is to be alternately worshiped and sacrificed, the ideal of the Sati, stoning to death of an adulteress, the unclean half of the population which menstruates and undergoes messy child birth… on and on ad nauseum. Now Lofton tells us that the source of misogyny actually lies in empiricism and scientific enquiry. Well, you could have knocked me down with a feather!

[thanks to Prasad for the pointer]
Endless War or Endgame? (Sujatha)

December 4, 2009

A palpable sense of dismay crept over me as I watched President Obama's speech on Tuesday in front of Westpoint cadets so tired many almost seemed to fall asleep before it got over ( See reason for tiredness here)

The facts were plain: A surge of 30,000 troops to be added post-haste, logistics/lives be damned, all in place by summer 2010. The recital of the 9/11 litany and history lesson on why we went into Afghanistan in the first place, under-resourced war because of the diversion into Iraq, etc. etc. I was ready to nod off, like many in the immediate audience.

Endless speeches.

Wait, there's a glimmer of hope. Everyone (or is it only the Surgers) will start coming home most definitely by July 2011. That's a given.

Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda…Why isn't he referring to the Taliban, the proximal enemy? What is this laser-eyed focus on a handful of fighters hiding in the mountains of Waziristan? Is it overkill to send in so many troops for so few, or is there something that they know which they aren't going to broadcast to the world?

A direct address to the people of Afghanistan "We have no interest in occupying your country….America is your partner, not patron."Then the focus turned to Pakistan, which as I have earlier speculated in this blog post in October, might very well be the next frontier in this war.

"The "war on terror' (pardon the usage of a now-obsolete term) is now
expanding in fronts, moving like a not-so-stealthy cancer from the
hills of Waziristan into the once-safer cities and urban areas of
Pakistan. Who knows where it is headed next?" (My words, not the President's.)

Requisite call to the patriotic sense of duty of the military, much extravagant praise of their efforts to keep the country safe and free, etc. etc. God bless you and God bless America.

The next day, as I discussed the speech with a coworker, a 'Nam veteran, one thing he said struck me. "I'm not happy with this decision, but I trust him. At least, if things goes wrong, I'll know who to blame." That appears to echo the majority of the opinions heard from the common public while the media and the pundits endlessly analyze the pros and cons of the speech till the next shiny golf club swings their way.

As I mulled over the speech and its implications, trying to locate evidence for a 5-dimensional chess game, I tried on a 'war strategy' hat and squinted at the map of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and thought "What if the troops were trying to take the battle into the border region?"

Assuming that the Pakistani forces on the other side of the border were cooperative ( having reason enough, given the 'Carrots and Sticks' approach made clear by the Obama administration in this March 27 policy speech), it might just be possible to visualize a final 'flushing out' of the majority of the Al-Qaeda from the mountains.

Incidentally the March 27 speech is vastly interesting in its own right as a much clearer precursor to the Dec 2 speech. Many quotes from this speech seem to have made it into last Tuesday's address, notably:

"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you."

It's been rephrased minus the outright Pakistan reference.

As for the Taliban, there was a final reference to them in the Dec 2 speech, along the lines of "Welcome to the fold, prodigals who choose to return. The others shall perish." We can hope that it will not be endless war, just a preamble to peace that this surge delivers.

Should we trust him? If we do,at least we'll know who to blame if things go wrong.

Links:

Medley of reactions ranging from cautious praise from hawks to Kucinich's outrage.

Interesting analysis of a possible endgame
How to write a critical review

December 4, 2009

Via Brian Leiter's blog I found this hilarious assessment of Cornel West, the man and the memoir, by Scott McLemee. Whatever your opinion of West - good, bad or none, the review is recommended reading. Rarely have I come across a lacerating piece such as this one, which on balance comes across as neither harsh nor self serving. Take this gem for example:

As mentioned, his romantic life sounds complicated. Brother West is a reminder of Samuel Johnson’s description of remarriage as the triumph of hope over experience. One paragraph of musings following his third divorce obliged me to put the book down and think about things for a long while. Here it is:

“The basic problem with my love relationships with women is that my standards are so high — and they apply equally to both of us. I seek full-blast mutual intensity, fully fledged mutual acceptance, full-blown mutual flourishing, and fully felt peace and joy with each other. This requires a level of physical attraction, personal adoration, and moral admiration that is hard to find. And it shares a depth of trust and openness for a genuine soul-sharing with a mutual respect for a calling to each other and to others. Does such a woman exist for me? Only God knows and I eagerly await this divine unfolding. Like Heathcliff and Catherine’s relationship in Emily Bronte’s remarkable novel Wuthering Heights or Franz Schubert’s tempestuous piano Sonata No. 21 in B flat (D.960) I will not let life or death stand in the way of this sublime and funky love that I crave!”

No doubt this is meant to be inspirational. It is at any rate exemplary. Rendered more or less speechless, I pointed the passage out to my wife.

She looked it over and said, “Any woman who reads this needs to run in the opposite direction when she sees him coming.”

Returning to the book, I found, just a few pages later, that West was getting divorced for a fourth time. Seldom does reader response yield results that prove so empirically verifiable.
Not even a lump of coal

December 3, 2009

As is the custom around this time of the year, Houston is gearing up for the festive season. Christmas decorations are going up in private homes, city streets, public buildings and of course, retail stores. The city is even expecting a smattering of snow later this week – a rare weather phenomenon around these parts. Amidst the seasonal cheer, the grim effects of the recession plague many individuals, businesses and even charities. Demand for charitable services is up this year. Philanthropic organizations are feeling the pressure of the increasing demands and some have set out to monitor the eligibility of potential recipients. Tough times require a cold eye even in the season of warm hearts. Some of the charities that are doing background checks to determine who gets a gift this year, also happen to be sponosors of popular children's toy drives. A few of those plan to check the immigration status of the parents to ensure that Christmas toys go only to kids who are legal residents of Houston. I guess in hard economic times the spirit of the season must be limited by political borders.

They don't claim to know who's been naughty or nice, but some Houston charities are asking whether children are in the country legally before giving them toys.

In a year when more families than ever have asked for help, several programs providing Christmas gifts for needy children require at least one member of the household to be a U.S. citizen. Others ask for proof of income or rely on churches and schools to suggest recipients.

The Salvation Army and a charity affiliated with the Houston Fire Department are among those that consider immigration status, asking for birth certificates or Social Security cards for the children.

The point isn't to punish the children but to ensure that their parents are either citizens, legal immigrants or working to become legal residents, said Lorugene Young, whose Outreach Program Inc. is one of three groups that distribute toys collected by firefighters.

“It's not our desire to turn anyone down,” she said. “Those kids are not responsible if they are here illegally. It is the parents' responsibility.”

The idea of a charity turning away children because of decisions made by their parents unsettled some immigration activists.

“It is very disturbing to think a holiday like Christmas would be tainted with things like this,” said Cesar Espinoza, executive director of America for All, a Houston-based advocacy group. “Usually, people target the adults because the adults made the decision to migrate, where the children are just brought through no fault of their own.”

Other groups don't require specific documentation, relying instead on outside groups to recommend families.

“When you distribute toys to 10,000 to 12,000 kids, it's impossible to background (check) every child,” said Fred Joe Pyland, a Houston police officer who oversees the Blue Santa program. Blue Santa doesn't consider immigration status but collects names from police officers, schools and churches.

Those who do check immigration status or other qualifications say they are trying to ensure they make the best decisions about whom to help.

“We want to be good stewards, so the people that are donating to us trust we're going to do the right thing,” said Sonya Scott, manager of care ministries at West Houston Assistance Ministries. The group does not check immigration but requires identification, including birth certificates for children, and proof of income.

It has registered 686 children to provide with gifts this year, up from 613 last year.

At the Salvation Army, 30,000 children have registered for the Angel Tree program, which allows children to request the gifts they want most. That's up 20 percent from last year, spokesman Juan Alan said.

The rest of the story here.
Professor (Mrs.) Dasgupta (*) (prasad)

December 2, 2009

The Daily Princetonian has a story about percentages of female faculty, which are neither particularly high nor rising rapidly. The article doesn’t do either sexism or the Larry Summers stuff, and instead focuses on the lifestyle difficulties inherent in obtaining tenure, at least as currently structured:

Director of the Women’s Center Amada Sandoval said she was “surprised that we are not on par with our peers,” adding that she thinks the gender gap is a significant problem at the University. One of the biggest obstacles for women is the way the timeline for the tenure system is structured, she explained.

“The way the tenure system works, if you were hired in the tenure track, you would first be an assistant professor,” she said. “After six years, your position would be associate professor if you received tenure, and after a certain amount of time after that, you might be promoted to a full professor. This tenure structure is really hostile to people who anticipate having a family or people who are trying to have a family.”

The tenure system is not keeping up with social changes that have occurred in the past several years, Sandoval noted.

“I think the tenure system really hasn’t changed since most of the tenured faculty were men and most of the women stayed at home with the children,” she said. “That’s not the kind of world that we live in any more … I would say the system needs to get more flexible. It’s not just women that want to spend time with their children. It’s men, too, and they’re getting more and more able to admit that as our gender norms are softening up a bit.” (emphases added)

To zeroth order, one wins tenure at a top university (in addition to being smart and working on the right topics and making the right networking moves and all that jazz) by working all the time and not having a life. This isn’t too conducive to success in family related pursuits, especially if the pursuits in question involve babies.

To the extent that, as Ms. Sandoval seems to think, female Assistant Professors are less willing to forego rich family lives, it’s not clear to me that this is a problem a university either could or should fix, at least if the commodity it is most interested in maximizing is research output. A six-month or year long stop in the tenure clock for infant-tending seems decent, but it’s not my understanding that baby-work falls off rapidly after the first year. Delayed / flexible tenure tracks are especially problematic in the sciences or in engineering, where the expectation is that a researcher’s best work will have been done by age 45.

If the problem instead is that male junior faculty find it rather easier to find stay-at-home wives, no university has the ability to provide ambitious female professors desirous of home comforts with men who enjoy pushing baby-strollers and are willing to maintain the household. That change presumably comes about via societal changes in mores about about work in and out of home, supported by Scandinavian-style governmental legislation about paternity leave etc. I’m not claiming a university do nothing – CERN has a nice daycare center, for example; but to the extent that parity is the goal and the problem isn’t of the sexist-hiring-committee variety, I doubt an individual university can make dramatic improvements or even lead industry.

(*) A form of address I came across once
World AIDS Day 2009 and the promise of an HIV vaccine

December 1, 2009

More than a year ago I had highlighted my husband, Sudhir Paul's research in developing a vaccine against HIV. The HIV / AIDS epidemic which in the west was confined almost exclusively within the male gay community and IV drug users in the early days, has now extended its lethal reach well into the heterosexual population. In fact in less developed nations, AIDS is now mostly a disease of straight men and women. Currently there is no viable vaccine against the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

Today marks the 21st anniversary of World AIDS Day, a reminder that the scourge of AIDS is still with us. On this occasion, Mary Carmichael, the editor of the Health / Life section of Newsweek has an interesting and provocative report about the promise and the challenges of Professor Paul's efforts in developing an effective vaccine against HIV. In the article, Carmichael also describes the role of CIF, a foundation launched by a group of young enthusiasts who wish to see the putative vaccine traverse the successful path from the test tube to a medicine vial.

Please read the full article, enjoy the video and let me know what you think. (Another more technical article about the research in last summer's Washington Post)

Last summer, while watching a news program about a possible AIDS vaccine, Zach Barnett had a "Eureka!" moment. The show was describing a Texas scientist's unorthodox approach to vaccine-making, a strategy that involved superantigens and covalent bonds and a lot of other words that weren't in Barnett's vocabulary. That didn't matter; the science turned him on anyway. "It was just so cool," he says. "I was like, 'lightbulb!' "

For years, Barnett, a fashion publicist, had been trying to get involved in AIDS activism, but mainstream organizations had told him there wasn't much for him to do, save passing out brochures. "That was a waste of my talent," he says. Here he saw a use for his skills. He wrote to the scientist, Dr. Sudhir Paul of the University of Texas, to tell him that "if what he was saying was true, he was doing a bad job of publicizing it." To show he was serious, he offered Paul $50 out of his own pocket to support the research.

In the past decade, private groups have started funding not just causes but specific researchers. The phenomenon may have started with autism—private organizations raise $78 million each year, or 35 percent of the country's funding, some of it for research that isn't completely in line with mainstream thinking—but it's seeping into other fields too, including AIDS research. It's tempting to write off Paul's supporters: what makes them think they know something the NIH doesn't? On the other hand, if they're right and Paul really does have a way to vaccinate against HIV, they're funding one of the most important projects in contemporary medicine. The question they have to ask themselves is whether they're wasting their money or shifting a paradigm.

The AIDS vaccine field could use a shift. For more than two decades, scientists have mounted campaigns to vaccinate against the virus, only to lose each one, watching as their vaccine candidates have failed (and, in one case, may have made people more susceptible to the disease). In September, researchers announced some of the most encouraging results in years, but even that success was quickly undercut by an argument over how the data were analyzed. "It's been so tough to solve this problem," says David Montefiori, director of the Laboratory for AIDS Vaccine Research and Development at Duke University. "That may be because a lot of the approaches have just been the same old, same old. People keep repeating the same tactics over and over again with minor variations."

At first glance, Paul's HIV vaccine looks familiar; it uses the "neutralizing antibody" strategy, which calls on the body's B cells to make proteins that fight the virus. This approach is how all existing vaccines for other diseases work, but it hasn't succeeded against HIV. The virus is too smart to fall victim to the human immune system. It hides many of the identifying proteins on its outer coat, cloaking them from the prying eyes of B cells, and thus no antibodies are made.

A few proteins on the outside of the HIV virus remain naked and exposed. They have to, in order to bind to human cells and kill them. Paul has his eye on one of these proteins, called gp120. According to his theory, it is a superantigen, a protein related to a fragment of a retrovirus that wormed its way into the human genome hundreds of thousands of years ago and stayed there.
Direct Democracy – Unintended(?) Fallouts

November 30, 2009

While direct democracy is an enticing concept, it is always troubling when the fate of minorities is left to the decision of the majority – think recent voter initiatives on gay marriage in several US states. Here is another, from Switzerland, the directest democracy in today's world.

GENEVA — In a vote that displayed a widespread anxiety about Islam and undermined the country’s reputation for religious tolerance, the Swiss on Sunday overwhelmingly imposed a national ban on the construction of minarets, the prayer towers of mosques, in a referendum drawn up by the far right and opposed by the government.

The referendum, which passed with a clear majority of 57.5 percent of the voters and in 22 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons, was a victory for the right. The vote against was 42.5 percent. Because the ban gained a majority of votes and passed in a majority of the cantons, it will be added to the Constitution.

The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss People’s Party, or S.V.P., and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

The Swiss government said it would respect the vote and sought to reassure the Muslim population — mostly immigrants from other parts of Europe, like Kosovo and Turkey — that the minaret ban was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.”

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the justice minister, said the result “reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies.”

Is putting the kibosh on minaret building in any way comparable to the head scarf ban in France? The French threw in all conspicuous religious symbols in the mix to deflect attention from the fact that Muslim head scarves were probably the only real target. So, what were the Swiss thinking? That allowing Islamic architectural symbols will gradually lead to the spread of the Islamic dress code, demand for Sharia laws and if not granted, to domestic terrorism in pristine Heidiland? I don't know. But it sure appears that the propaganda of the rightist Swiss People’s Party, or S.V.P. may have led voters to fear just that. My two years stay in northern Germany taught me the extent to which the Teutonic races worship and enforce uniformity and order. I was wondering if the Swiss are merely objecting to the aesthetics of culturally alien structures among the Alpine landscape. But the right wing poster depicting minarets as missiles tells a different story, more like the Danish cartoon showing Prophet Mohammed with a bomb ticking in his turban.

On the other hand, in today's virulent "sauce for the goose and the gander" style global religious tensions, here is a similar story from a different part of the world (link: Louise Gordon). I want to know how many Islamic countries (granted, most are not democracies) allow the building or the exhibition of non-Islamic symbols, icons or architecture? Forget Saudi Arabia, Iran and other theocratic / totalitarian Islamic nations. Malaysia is supposedly a democracy. So is Pakistan. At least, they have parliamentary elections. I know they tolerate Christian churches somewhat grudgingly although bombing them from time to time is commonplace in Pakistan. But can one easily (or at all) build a Hindu/ Buddhist / Sikh / Jewish temple in Pakistan today? I would like to know. What about in Malaysia, Egypt, Iraq or Turkey?
Carnival of the Liberals # 99

November 29, 2009

The 99^th edition of the Carnival of the Liberals had to be outsourced to England. CotL organizer Leo Lincourt explains:

Well, we might all be still sleeping off our annual November turkey-induced tryptophan comas in the US, but in the UK they don’t go in for such silliness. Instead, the Brits just prefer to burn conspiratorial Catholics in effigy every November 5th. For which we can give thanks, because that nicely freed up Jonathan Calder to assemble the 99th edition of Carnival of the Liberals this holiday weekend. Head on over to Liberal England for our usual eclectic assemblage of the best of this month’s liberal blogging.

Check out Jonathan Calder's selection for the Carnival here.
Pretty fly (prasad)

November 28, 2009

Visual computations tend to be generically hard and resource intensive. For example, our state-of-the-art algorithm for yaw detection in flight apparently needs Moore’s Law engorged Intel Cores to do anything useful. And yet mere flies seem to manage the number-crunching just fine…The trick at least in this instance seems to be that flies aren’t using our stupid state-of-the-art algorithm. Theirs is vastly nicer:

By turning the brain cell activity underlying fly eyesight into mathematical equations, researchers have found an ultra-efficient method for pulling motion patterns from raw visual data.[…]

“We can build a system that works perfectly well, inspired by biology, without having a complete understanding of how the components interact. It’s a non-linear system,” said David O’Carroll, a computational neuroscientist who studies insect vision at Australia’s University of Adelaide. “The number of computations involved is quite small. We can get an answer using tens of thousands of times less floating-point computations than in traditional ways.”[…]

The researchers’ algorithm is composed of a series of five equations through which data from cameras can be run. Each equation represents tricks used by fly circuits to handle changing levels of brightness, contrast and motion, and their parameters constantly shift in response to input. Unlike Lucas-Kanade, the algorithm doesn’t return a frame-by-frame comparison of every last pixel, but emphasizes large-scale patterns of change. In this sense, it works a bit like video-compression systems that ignore like-colored, unshifting areas.

There’s probably some generic lesson here – the set of efficient solutions to any problem could well be vastly larger than the subset which makes use of well-separated, clear, extensible cases, modular reasoning, simple and readily debugged steps and the like, which subset in turn is probably larger than that of solutions people tend to come up with. Nature, with no particular need for comprehensibility or ease of maintenance, can happily brute-force out methods that work rather well while making no sense.

I’m sure that’s overstated – eyes work in quite sensible ways – while R&D and further inquiry will doubtless clarify what now seems inexplicable because of novelty. Still, I shouldn’t be surprised if many mind-tricks turned out to be like this – no human smart enough to do the amazing thing would have the cheek to do it this maddening, meaningless, hideous way.
Happy Thanksgiving…or Not (Sujatha)

November 26, 2009

It's good to be thankful on Thanksgiving, or not, per PZ Myers of Pharyngula.

"This whole notion that one should have vague and aimless feelings of
gratitude for the nature of one's existence is just too weird, and the
bow-your-head-at-the-table and radiate-blessings-at-the-cosmos
tradition is pointless and silly. Don't get me wrong: I can be
appropriately and happily grateful to people who have gone out of their
way to do good for me — Mom will get a phone call, and my wife will get
a hug, and they really are appreciated — but for the most part, our
existence is not the product of selfless altruism, and there is nothing
out there that can be aware of just how glad you are to be alive, no
matter how fawning and fulsome you may be."

But I swear, I did see a bunch of thankful turkeys. Here they are. For those little moments of happiness, I am truly thankful.
Contact

November 25, 2009

ruchirapaul at gmail dot com
The wonder peptide hormone (Joe)

November 24, 2009

Oxytocin: it's behind all prosocial behavior, and Wall Street wouldn't exist without it. I'm not quite sure capitalism was the point of the study, but still, that's what I'm choosing to to take out of it. Interesting article.
Kerr, originalism, and the right to counsel (Joe)

November 24, 2009

Orin has a post up at Volokh Conspiracy posing a thought experiment (or something) to originalists. Essentially, it's been good constitutional law for a long time that the sixth amendment right to counsel means that the state must provide an attorney for a criminal defendant (in a sufficiently serious case). Under stare decisis principles, this shouldn't be changed. But if you're an originalist, meaning that you believe either the original public meaning or the original intended/expected application should govern constitutional interpretation, should you favor overruling all those cases? At the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted, in England the right to counsel meant that you could get the assistance of counsel if you could afford a lawyer, which was itself a break from the older tradition in which defendants didn't get lawyers, period. Or so the theory goes. So, arguendo, the originalist reading of the sixth amendment is that it guarantees you the right to be represented by an attorney if you can afford to hire an attorney. You're an originalist. What do you do?

This is supposed to get at what the proper role of stare decisis (adherence to legal precedents) is to an originalist. I get that. But unless I'm just missing something, this seems like a lousy example. Even if we agree that the original meaning of the sixth amendment right to assistance of counsel means the government doesn't have to pay for lawyers for indigent defendants, the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee "due process of law." As far as I know, even among wacko conservatives (ahem, Justice Thomas), it is undisputed that this guarantees procedural due process, i.e., a procedurally fair trial. And I feel fairly confident in saying that there's absolutely no way that, under our current legal system, a felony defendant can get a procedurally fair trial if he doesn't have an attorney. Thus, the due process clauses of other amendments have to independently guarantee the right to an appointed attorney. Which means that that the originalist who doesn't believe in stare decisis only gets to say "well, you should hold that it's guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments instead of the sixth." Or really, the originalist justice will at most say "it's guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments, and we therefore do not reach the question of whether it's guaranteed by the sixth."

Recent posts

about