About a month ago, my local paper the Spartanburg Herald Journal ran an editorial by writer Lane Filler entitled Abortion Eliminated, My Way. In it he listed his ideas for what he figured would be good solutions to making abortions a part of America’s past, not it’s present. I was actually astounded that Mr. Filler was allowed to have such a piece printed, and I was appalled by the concepts he proposed. The more I thought about it, the madder I got, so I decided to go pro-active and write about these proposals.

I will go on record first that I believe that abortions should be extremely rare, and that it makes for a very poor method of birth control. The procedure is the most invasive of all methods of birth control, more expensive, offers higher risks for complications, and approaches handling unwanted pregnancies as a reaction, not a prevention matter. To me in a perfect world, all pregnancies would be welcomed, all children would be cherished, all parents willing and able to care for their children. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and the matter of what to do with a pregnancy or a baby that is not welcomed has been a problem for millennium.

I am a person who believes that all life is precious while also believing that all people should be able to make choices, when it came to their bodies, even if they were harmful, knowing that consequences good or bad are always in the mix. I, being more on the side of being pro-life would like to see abortions greatly reduced, or deemed unnecessary. So I can understand others, who are even more pro-life minded then me, when they want to find solutions to ending abortion, even if I have issues with their reasonings. Lane Filler’s op-ed piece attempts to suggest wonderful solutions to this problem. The solutions in the op-ed piece, to me, take a good bit of the matter of human rights and choice right out of the equation. So what are these solutions and what are its problems?

The first two solutions demands that all women of child bearing age be on birth control, or sign a waiver that they desire to become pregnant, and so give up their rights to abortion. It seeks to force insurance companies to supply birth control, or to enact private sector groups to supply birth control. It makes small allowances for women who find themselves on birth control yet pregnant anyway, and for cases of rape or medical emergency.

The next set deals with minors. Parents must put their daughters on birth control. If they opt not to place them thus, they too must sign a waiver. If their daughter becomes pregnant, then they must agree to raise that child themselves. Minors are forbidden from raising their own children. If a minor opts to adopt their own child from the child’s grandparents, once they are old enough, then they must go through a legal process as if it was not their birth child.

There is a short disclaimer admitting that these solutions offer nothing in regards to other contributors to the pregnancies, the fathers. It is instead stated that there is now no forms of contraceptives that works on males as well as they do females. The piece also assumes that adoption will become lucrative as there will be even less babies available to adopt.

After reading these options I have to ask the following questions.

What happens when one’s religion prevents a woman from using contraceptives?

When is the right age to give a young teenage girl her first IUD?

Why is it assumed that just because someone is under the age of 18, that they are incapable of being a wonderful parent?

What happens when a young teenager finds herself pregnant and her parents abandon her because they don’t want to take on the responsibility of another mouth to feed? What are the consequences of such a scenario?

What right do we have to demand what is in essence the mass sterilization, albeit temporary, of half of the nation’s population?

Who right now doesn’t think that adoption isn’t already a very expensive, often lucrative process? Who isn’t worried that the problem of selling babies could very well skyrocket under this system?

Then there is this.

Why do the males in this equation get yet another pass? Instead of forcing girls to take the pill or insert an IUD, why can’t we demand that all males of reproductive age undergo a simple reversible vasectomy? Why can’t it be insisted that both people who started a pregnancy be made responsible, and that the male partner be held just as accountable as the female, and that enforcement of that accountability be held? That way it would at least help ensure that the mother would get at least financial support from the other parent in this deal.

Girls are starting their periods these days as early as 10 years old. So do we start contraceptives then? And is it to be assumed that most girls from ages ten to 18 are sexually active?

Lane Filler’s disclaimer regarding the male role in all this states. “This plan has the flaw of sexism because it puts the responsibility on females and the parents of females, but that’s where science and history have taken us. We’ve never developed medical male contraception and mothers and their families have traditionally been stuck with the majority of the responsibility when children birth children. We’ll give this plan a few years to work, then address that.” In other words, guys have been off the hook forever. It says “Obviously this works just fine for us guys, so we’ll just keep it that way, until we think of something better, some day, maybe. Sorry, ladies.”

Forcing contraceptives on women and girls is not going to work. It is an Orwellian idea, it infringes on personal rights and is completely prejudiced in whom it targets. It would also not end abortions, but drive them back underground where they were between 1900, when nearly all abortions were outlawed to 1973 when the Roe vs. Wade decision was handed down. It is also notable that the Roe vs. Wade decision took the abortion restrictions back to similar standards that were enacted in 1830, when our seventh president was in office. To save you a google search, it was Andrew Jackson. While you are Googling, look up the Comstock law which was enacted in 1873, and finally overturned in 1938.

The solution to reducing abortions in our nation is a combination of several things. Education is of course primary. Education should exist to teach females and males principles on proper respect and preparation when it comes to sex within relationships, and of the responsibilities one faces when engaging in behavior that has certain risks, some of them long term.

Another would be to make contraceptives more affordable, requiring insurance companies to cover it. This was the only one idea of Lane Filler’s that I found worthwhile, although I utterly disagreed with the setting. Many states don’t require insurance companies to cover things like the birth control pill, and those pills without prescription coverage are quite expensive. We could ask that insurance companies don’t require women to buy a rider for pregnancy coverage as some have to do. Purchasing coverage after discovering one is pregnant can be impossible, depending on where one lives and the coverage available.

The last requires a change of attitude when it comes to the matter of abortion itself. We don’t have to like abortion, but we certainly could use more compassion, trying to understand what a woman goes through, emotionally to come to the point to arranging for an abortion. We could stop treating women who get abortions and the people who perform them as immoral and unethical people worthy of only our hatred and scorn. We can work to find common ground between those who treat all life as sacred from conception, and those who believe that all people should be in complete control their bodies, recognizing that both extremes have merit, but that the answer lies in neither extreme. We can also use that common ground to help educate people about sound sexual health practices, and that there are really good solutions to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and the even more undesired, highly dangerous sexually transmitted infections that are still very much a risk in this modern age.

I completely understand that opinion pieces are just that, a person’s opinion on a certain topic. There may be some that completely agree with Lane Filler’s piece and the suggestions that he offered, but I suspect that there are quite a few of us, like myself, who find themselves insulted at the world he proposes; a world were choices and rights are removed from a large segment of the population in order to prevent something that occurs amongst a very small minority of that population segment; a world where accountability and consequences are placed upon a only half of those actually responsible for the issue while giving the other half no accountability at all; and a world conceived by someone who has no idea what it is like to find oneself unexpectedly with child, and therefore seems to have little compassion for those who may find themselves thus. But then, that’s just my opinion.

=======
This post, Abortion Eliminated?, originally appeared on She Thought on August 30, 2010.
=======

A version of this originally appeared here.

I’m freshly home from two big, fun, family trips.  Both included significant time away from civilization.  One was in the desert and the other was in Waterton/Glacier International Peace Park. We had a fantastic time, and enjoyed some amazing scenery hiking in the Canadian Rockies.

We are experienced backpackers, cyclists, and before children, climbers. Whether I’m hiking alone, with my children, or with a group, I (unfortunately) always carry a heavy pack.  I believe it is my personal responsibility to keep myself safe and to avoid endangering rescuers.  Hiking with children adds another significant layer of preparedness responsibility, along with all the extra kid snacks and gear to keep everyone happy and (relatively) calm.  It seems to me that the protocol for wilderness preparedness is analogous to that of critical thinking preparedness.

Mountaineering organizations have compiled lists of important potentially lifesaving items backpackers should carry at all times. These are known as the Ten Essentials. Although the item details vary among lists, there is general consensus about the ten broad categories of essentials.  Here are the categories:

1. Navigational equipment
This includes topographic maps, compass, GPS, etc. along with competency in their use.

2. Sun protection
Quality sunglasses/sunscreen along with SPF lip balm.

3. Insulation
Extra clothing made of synthetic materials–hat, gloves and enough layers to allow you to survive the coldest temperatures you could reasonably expect if you’re stuck out overnight. I would also include rain gear in this category.

4. Illumination
A headlamp with an extra set of batteries works well.  Remember to carry at least one water bottle and all battery-powered items in interior pockets in very cold weather so the batteries stay warm and the water stays liquid.

5. First Aid supplies
And familiarity with first aid techniques.  I learned while doing research for this post that prepackaged first aid kits are inadequate.  I’ll have to modify my own kit.

6. Fire
You need an ignition source such as a couple of disposable lighters along with fire starting material like a candle or dry tinder.

7. Repair kit and tools
Things like knife/multitool, 6 feet of so of duct tape, extra cordage for broken laces or pitching an emergency shelter.

8. Nutrition
Enough no-cook food for and extra day and night–jerkey, Clif Bars, and the like.

9. Hydration
Carry plenty of water plus means of ground-source water purification–like a filter or iodine tablets.

10. Emergency shelter
Like a space blanket or a couple of extra-large trash bags.

In addition to these items, I typically carry pepper spray, a tooth brush (I cope better in crises with clean teeth), toilet paper, and a cell phone (turned off–it’s only for emergency use).  When we hike with our children, everyone carries a whistle, and we enforce the rule that we all stay together as a group. It is also critical to let someone outside your party know the details of your trip plan and when to call authorities if you fail to return.
Like mountaineering, critical thinking requires ongoing refinement of the essential skillsets and gear.  It can be difficult to objectively and logically evaluate an argument, especially when either (or both) party has a strong emotional investment.  It’s very difficult to keep a level head in potentially dangerous conditions.  I have read many accounts of mountaineering injuries and fatalities that might have been prevented. In hindsight it’s very easy to see where one bad decision or mistake led to increasingly serious mistakes. Likewise, after everyone calms down, it’s easy to see where a debate went awry and devolved into ad-hominem attacks.

Here are some habits that I think are essential to both outdoor survival and critical thinking.  I’ve undoubtedly omitted some, and would welcome suggestions:

1. Self-evaluate
Double-check your gear to make sure you have everything and that everything is in good working order. Triple-check climbing gear. Double-check your own argument for any factual errors or logical fallacies. Overconfidence in either situation can easily lead you into trouble.

2. Listen
Instead of replaying an argument over and over in your head, listen to the sounds around you.  The sounds of nature are amazingly restorative, and may tip you off to danger like a waterfall (which should cause you to start looking around for a cliff not to stumble off of), or a predator.

Instead of mentally preparing your counter-argument while the other person is prattling on about something ridiculous, try to actually listen and reflect back: “What I’m hearing you say is that aliens have abducted you and subjected you to sexually-themed experiments?”

3. Improvise
Don’t get freaked out if some small thing goes awry.  Think about an alternative solution.  Early in a multi-day river trip, I was able to use a temple piece from an extra pair of sunglasses to repair a broken tent pole.

Don’t get freaked out if an example you use to make your point falls apart.  Think of a different example to make your point and see if your argument still holds up: “I’m sorry your regular physician was dismissive. Perhaps a different doctor could swab for DNA or other evidence?”

4. Try not to panic
If you notice that dusk is falling and you’re exhausted and still not back at base camp, stay calm and carefully consider your next move.  You have several options: put on your headlamp, keep going, and hope for the best; consult a map and decide whether or not you can realistically make it to base camp before dark; stop where you are and set up your emergency shelter, build a fire, have a snack, rest, and wait until morning to hike out; panic and stumble off a cliff in the dark.

If the person you are arguing with stumps you, stay calm: “I don’t know the answer to the alien DNA question either.  Maybe you could ask your doctor about that, or I could help you find someone to test the implant biopsy for you.”

5. Train
We live well above sea level, so all the cycling and hiking we do regularly near our home helped tremendously with our stamina in the mountains.  We were on the lookout for altitude sickness, but everyone did well.

Practice critical thinking.  If you read of hear something that doesn’t sound right, check it our for yourself.  Imagine trying to convince someone to accept your argument.  Gather valid, verifiable evidence for your position.  Explore the opposite point of view and try to imagine the counter-arguments: “No, I can’t prove that aliens don’t abduct and probe rural Americans; however, I have seen many credible alternative explanations for alien abduction experiences and no verifiable scientific proof supporting alien abduction stores.”

6. Stay warm and well-hydrated
Always good advice.

7. Don’t risk your life for the summit
Many mountaineering accidents occur on the way back down from the summit.  Climbers push for the summit in the face of impending storms, darkness, or other serious risks instead of waiting out the danger and making a second attempt.

Don’t engage in arguments with dangerous or mentally ill people.  Walk away.  Also, evaluate the value of your relationship with the other party before you forever alienate them: “This alien abduction and probing business is simply a lucid dream influenced by your preoccupation with homophobia…”

8. Play well with others
In my anecdotal experience, mountaineering and climbing with people who are jerky egomaniacs is inherently dangerous.  In skepticism as well, don’t be a dick.  It can be challenging to find a balance between science advocacy and being a jerk.  In either circumstance, being a jerk does significant harm to the cause.

9. Stay loose on your feet and remain flexible.
If the planned route is buried in rockfall, consult a map and either retreat or find a safe way around the danger.  If credible, scientific evidence emerges that refutes your opinion, consider revising your paradigm.  To use the UFO example, there are many potential scenarios which would persuade me to revise my disbelief.

10. Maintain a sense of humor–especially about yourself.
Happy Critical Thinking!

Disclaimer:  I’m not trying to single out people who believe they’ve been victims of alien abduction.  I simply used this as one of many examples of a pseudoscientific paradigm about which I am strongly skeptical.  It could just have easily been anti-vaccination, or Muslims=terrorists, or any number of other misguided claims.  As ever, I remain open to changing my mind in the face of credible evidence.

I read once in Sagan’s Demon Haunted World that many purported victims of alien abduction are actually victims of childhood sexual assault.  In trying to cope with that horror, they understandably fabricated an alternative reality to “someone I love is torturing me.”

Check out Kitty’s awesome site for more information about alien abduction.

In case you were wondering why anyone would climb a mountain.

=======
This post, Ten Essentials of Effective Skeptical Outreach, originally appeared on She Thought on August 27, 2010.
=======

Sponsored by Central New York Skeptics

Time: Wednesday, September 15^th, 7:00 PM, Free and open to the public

Location: Dewitt Community Library, Large Meeting Room, ShoppingTown Mall, 3649 Erie Blvd. East, 
DeWitt NY 13214

Contact Lisa Goodlin, 315-446-3068, for more information.

Presentation summary:

Kitty Mervine will give an overview of how the modern alien/UFO experience came to be, the joys of working with people who have had an abductee experience, and how you can sometimes reach even the most hardened believer in woo by letting them figure it out on their own (with just a little bit of help).

Speaker biography:

Kitty Mervine is a professional artist and teacher. Her artwork has appeared in shows and galleries in both the US and Europe.  Kitty is currently in charge of investigations for the Granite State Skeptics and has lectured on aliens and UFOs.  For the past six years she has served as an UFO/Alien expert on many web sites, answering questions using her back-up team of experts. She runs the web site badalien.org, which is geared toward people who believe that they have been abducted by aliens. Badalien.org offers alternative explanations for the abduction experience and a place where abductees can share their experiences without the fear of being ridiculed.

=======
This post, “A Close Encounter with Kitty Mervine”, originally appeared on She Thought on August 26, 2010.
=======

If you’re like me, you sigh, and, if you’re feeling particularly energetic, you post your own list of citations saying exactly the opposite.

Because really, who has the time, or the inclination, or the skills, to look up every single one of those studies and analyze the methodology or the interpretations? Especially when there are not one, not two, but twenty one studies given to support their claim?

Kim Hebert, that’s who. In a serendipitous convergence of the knowledge, tenacity and free time required to research the twenty one papers that Naturopath Bryce Wylde submitted as his favourite studies on homeopathy, Kim has provided a summary of each and every one.

As Mr. Wylde took the time to respond to criticism with a list of citations that are his favourite, I must assume that he intends this list to be persuasive supporting data for homeopathy, if not the best data available. Given that he prides himself on his evidence-based practice and discusses homeopathy in regular media appearances, I expect that if there’s good data to support homeopathy, he would have it. I also expect that Mr. Wylde, in using scientific papers to validate his position, values the scientific method and recognizes that science is not inherently biased against homeopathy or ineffective in evaluating its effects.

Curious about the results? Read the whole post at SkepticNorth.com.

=======
This post, Des Liked: How To Argue With an Alternative Health Proponent, in Twenty One Mind-Numbing Steps, originally appeared on She Thought on August 26, 2010.
=======

Today I read an article that I found infuriating, but then I’m easily infuriated, because of what appeared to be either really bad methodology in a study or really silly conclusions by the journalist who wrote the piece.  Since I can’t see the study and I can read the piece, I’ll try to avoid pointing a finger in either direction.  It was posted several months ago, but came to my attention today.  It reminded me of how important it is to be critical of the media’s handling of scientific studies.

The piece is called “The Psychology of Knock Offs: Why ‘Faking It’ Makes Us Feel (and Act) Like Phonies“.  The basic premise is that, through a study recently conducted, scientists have concluded that people are more dishonest and cynical when they wear knock off goods.

I’ll be the first to admit that this sort of thing falls well below my normal threshold of caring.  People who wear things because they are a specific brand or because they look like they’re a specific brand are a little alien to me.  It strikes me as fairly shallow behavior, but if it makes them happy, it’s really no skin off my back.  If you can buy something for $5 from a dude on the street in New York and it impresses all the ladies back home because it looks like a $500 purse, good for you, right?  How on earth does a purse cost that much anyway?

In any event, the basic methodology for the study was that they had girls come in and they gave them sunglasses.  Half were told they were super expensive awesome sunglasses, and the other half were told they were cheapo knockoffs.  They were then given a battery of tests in which lying would earn them more money.  They were also given a survey that asked them their views on the world.  The women (and it was all young women, why no guys?) who were told they had cheapo sunglasses were much more likely to lie and be cynical.

From this, the journalist concludes that people who buy knock offs are paying a hidden moral cost that makes them more likely to lie and be cynical.

Wearing counterfeit glasses not only fails to bolster our ego and self-image the way we hope, it actually undermines our internal sense of authenticity. “Faking it” makes us feel like phonies and cheaters on the inside, and this alienated, counterfeit “self” leads to cheating and cynicism in the real world.

That would be a really interesting conclusion if the methodology at all allowed you to make it, but it doesn’t.

I have some questions that aren’t answered in the article.  Did they all get the sunglasses at the same time?  Did they know other people had supposedly real sunglasses?  Were they tested by the same person who told them that the sunglasses were real or fake?  Did they get to take the glasses home, or did they think they would get to take the glasses home?

But there are problems I can see with just the information in the article:

1) The volunteers given “real” sunglasses were told they were authentic, so they’d already been rewarded and were therefore more likely to do what they thought the researchers wanted.

2) The volunteers given “fake” sunglasses had been told, essentially, that they didn’t deserve real sunglasses when the researchers told them they were fakes, and were therefore less likely to do what they thought the researchers wanted.

3) The volunteers had just been cheated, of course they felt more negative.

4) The volunteers were gifted sunglasses, they didn’t buy them knowing that they were knock offs, so it’s impossible to extrapolate the behavior to people who buy their own sunglasses.

5) The volunteers received no benefit from wearing fake sunglasses because they didn’t buy them — the entire reason people buy fake brand names is to save money, in what way is a study that excludes the primary motivating factor at all useful in studying a behavior?

6) There’s no way to be sure that the behavior is linked to wearing the sunglasses rather than linked to being given sunglasses of one kind or another.

The only reasonable conclusion from the study is that people who are given things they’re told aren’t very nice don’t feel terribly good about it.  This is, of course, not a broad and moralistic statement and it doesn’t really make good news, and that’s a big problem with a lot of science reporting.  When something interesting happens in a study, the response is to exaggerate it, make huge claims, and moralize wherever possible.  Interesting patterns are often pointed to as conclusive results and people with pre-determined moral opinions take things and run.

If you want to tell me that ”[c]ounterfeiting is a serious economic and social problem, epidemic in scale,” I’d love to hear the whys and wherefores, but I’d much rather hear the facts and figures accurately explained.

=======
This post, Pop Psychology and the Media, originally appeared on She Thought on August 25, 2010.
=======

Recently, skeptics around the web have been buzzing about a public service announcement, first aired in April of 2009, which features singer and actress Jennifer Lopez urging parents to get themselves vaccinated against Pertussis. The PSA goes right for the gut; it uses recordings of a child suffering from the characteristic “whooping” cough to try to persuade parents to get the shot in order to avoid spreading the disease to their kids.

It’s a powerful message and, given the recent resurgence of Pertussis in California, it couldn’t be more timely. Skeptics are rightly praising the spot as a welcome celebrity endorsement for the embattled reputation of vaccines. So why does the attention being paid to this PSA by skeptics make me a little uneasy? Because of what’s not being said about Lopez and her qualifications.

Whenever Jenny McCarthy opens her mouth and utters another disingenuous statistic, unverified anecdote or outright lie about the dangers of vaccination, skeptics delight in pointing out her (complete lack of) expertise. In particular, they love to make snide remarks about her career, implying – if not saying outright – that being “former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy” automatically makes her an untrustworthy resource.

The analysis isn’t entirely ad hominem, of course; there has also been plenty of examination of why each individual syllable of McCarthy’s argument is completely wrong. But a good number of otherwise cogent commentary includes that reverse argument from authority, and it seems like something of a double standard that we’re not acknowledging that the woman who’s on our side is “former Fly Girl Jennifer Lopez.”

I’m not trying to take anything away from Lopez or her message.  Science in general, and vaccines in particular, can always use defending by people who can appeal to such a large fan audience. And there’s something to be said for combating celebrity promotion of anti-scientific crap with a strong celebrity endorsement of actual facts. Fighting fire with fire is, metaphorically at least, a pretty effective strategy.

Still, the disparity in the way we’re treating the two women leaves me with a lot of questions.  Is it entirely honest of us to deride Jenny McCarthy’s not-terribly-intellectual career choices, while giving a pass to Lopez? Why do we focus on the most salacious parts of McCarthy’s past, and ignore her career as an actress? Are we in effect arguing that the overtly sexual nature of her early work somehow detracts from her intelligence? Isn’t her argument vapid enough on its own? Do we really have to resort to snickering over some photos in a softcore skin mag?

Furthermore, is the double standard justified because Lopez agrees with us? Should we be taking greater pains to make it clear that Lopez is a celebrity spokesperson, and not a scientist? Or should we maybe consider laying off Jenny McCarthy’s nude photos, and focus more closely on the naked falsehoods coming out of her mouth?

If I could answer any of these questions to my own satisfaction, I wouldn’t be asking them here. I hope you’ll weigh in with a comment and tell me what you think.

=======
This post, The Skeptical Headline You’ll Never See, originally appeared on She Thought on August 24, 2010.
=======

There is no stoplight in Spofford, so the village is easy to drive right through. About fifteen minutes from Brattleboro, however, you might catch a few glimpses of sparkling blue peeking through the thick cover of pine trees. If you turn off Route 9 towards the blue, you can drive along a smaller side road and can drive along the lake. Many of the people you find in the summer are visitors. However, if you run into a local villager you will find them friendly and easy-going, wearing comfortable clothes and probably carrying a kayak.

Lake Spofford is wonderful in the summertime. The lake is large enough for sailboats and motorboats, and there is a small island in the middle. The island is technically called “Pierce Island,” but locals sometimes refer to it as “Blueberry Island” because in July you can pick delicious blueberries from bushes that cover the island. There are also two rope swings out at the island—children spent hours competing for the best dives into the water off the swings. My home is about three miles from the lake, and my two daughters grew up at the lake. They spent almost every day of their summer vacations at the little town beach, or kayaking out to the island. The village is a wonderful place to live and raise a family.

But, I’m not the only person who grew to have an appreciation for Spofford Village and Lake Spofford.  Recently, whenever I’m paddling in my kayak on the lake I take a moment to remember  another Spofford Lake fan. I gaze down at the sparkling water and say, “Hi George! Nice day on the lake today, huh?”

I know that talking to a lake is completely silly and non-skeptical, but I do it anyway. Whenever I am paddling along the lake, I smile proudly knowing that part of George Carlin’s ashes were scattered here in 2008 by his brother, Patrick Carlin and daughter, Kelly Carlin-McCall.  The rest of his ashes were scattered in front of comedy clubs in New York City. Carlin’s family scattered his ashes at places that Carlin remembered fondly and where he started his career in comedy.

George Carlin told some of his first jokes during his summers attending Camp Notre Dame  on the shores of Lake Spofford, where he received some of his first kudos as an aspiring comedian and actor. He won camp drama awards often. One year, he won a particularly special prize: a necklace with tragedy and comedy faces. The necklace clearly meant something to Carlin. His daughter, Kelly Carlin-McCall, told the Keene Sentinel newspaper that her father was wearing that necklace when he died. George Carlin was even known to perform while wearing a Camp Notre Dame T-shirt.  He remained friends with the family that had run the camp his entire life. As a  teacher myself, I always try to keep the story of Carlin at Camp Notre Dame in mind. Early talent should be recognized and encouraged.

George Carlin first came into my life in Maryland when I was much younger.  His “Seven Dirty Words” routine made him the favorite comedian of my friends and myself.  We just didn’t re-tell his jokes.  We talked about the subject of the routine.  What was a dirty word?  What made some words dirty and others not?  What horrible thing would happen if people heard too many dirty words?  How powerful are words?  George Carlin never let you just hear a routine and laugh.  His routines made you talk, made you think, and they stayed with you and sometimes even changed how you looked at the world and how you behaved.  To say I admire George Carlin is an understatement.

George Carlin is one of my great skeptical influences. Many skeptics and atheists ( note that I do not necessarily equate the two automatically) consider Carlin a hero, a critical thinker and a critic of religion.  I began to wonder how, exactly, George felt about religion. At the Amaz!ng Meeting 8 there was a lot of talk about atheism and tolerance (or indeed intolerance). I am personally a Deist, and  I wondered how George would feel about my Deism and “hanging on to those delusions” of mine.  So I decided to write to Carlin’s brother and ask what he thought.

George Carlin’s brother, Patrick Carlin, was extremely courteous and helpful. I am honored that he took the time to help me with my question.  He also most kindly took the time to contact George’s daughter, Kelly Carlin- McCall, and ask her about her father’s beliefs or lack thereof.  I wanted to share their answers to my question with the readers of this blog.

From Patrick Carlin to Kelly Carlin-McCall:

Kelly, I’m puzzled by this lady’s trip [to the Amaz!ng Meeting], but I’ve heard of The Amazing Randi.  I don’t think I ever heard George say he was an atheist.  I know his routines and I just heard him say:

“There is no god.” (what follows are Patrick Carlin’s words)  I’m a fucking agnostic because I’m basically an optimist.  I have hopes of the Big Electron being the main scene.  I don’t go down the atheist  trail because to me saying there is No god is as dogmatic as saying that Jesus or the mean, old angry biblical god with the beard or Allah or anyone else IS god.  I say Fuckem All.  If you think you know what happens after you croak, be it a sky full of cumulus clouds and herds of harp players, singers and trumpet blowers or if you are SURE there is nothing at all, you are talking about your beliefs. And, I don’t give a fuck what ANYONE BELIEVES.  I deal in facts and the fact is that ANYONE from the Pope down to the lowliest holy roller or the most elite atheist of the world who says they know what comes after is FULL OF SHIT.”

My question Kelly is Do you think of your dad as an atheist?  I think of him as an agnostic who really dug the idea of the Big Electron? Atheist or Big Electron leaning, Agnostic?

-Patrick

From Kelly Carlin-McCall to Patrick Carlin:

I do believe that he said that he was an agnostic in the end for the same reasons you just gave.  I know about the Amazing Meeting, and have friends who attend.  Dad hated any kind of dogma, and he believed that if belief gave people comfort, then leave them alone.  And the fact that these Atheists now have meetings and conventions would give him lots of fodder to denounce their fundamentalism.  They are all joiners in the end.  He was a man who stood in the I don’t know jack shit about it all.  He loved thinking about aliens and was jealous when I had a strange encounter with my mom shortly after her death.

So, there we go. George Carlin was likely an agnostic, not an atheist. And I have to be honest.  While I have a belief in God, I also have to say that, when it comes down to it, I have to agree with Carlin: I don’t know jack shit about it all. And, when it comes down to it, I feel pretty good that Carlin and I agree on that.

=======
This post, George Carlin’s Notre Dame, originally appeared on She Thought on August 23, 2010.
=======

Wait, to tell the truth, it hurt my pride — the groom was prettier than the bride.

“Sadie, Sadie” from the movie Funny Girl

And then Sadie’s groom got her pregnant and abandoned the relationship in favor of gambling.

We fail in our love lives so much, even Hollywood tinsel can’t always make it look good, but it tries, as does the rest of the media. And what do we inquisitive beasts do when we think we’re in trouble? Even in matters of love, we look for answers.

A few million years ago, perhaps less, some ancestors of modern humans stood under the night sky, pondering the world they lived in. Two of these people were males, a father and son. The father then dispensed the first two items of advice ever given: 1) Where to hunt the fattest game and 2) how to seduce.

Relationship advice has existed for a very long time and when the evolution of media began, it didn’t slow down, it picked up. From the invention of the printing press, love was the topic du jour, and it still is. Run a few relationship questions through google and you get news stories like this:

10 Things You Don’t Know About Liars (with the url slug being, “/how-to-tell-hes-lying”)
27 Subtle Signs She Wants You
10 Signs a Man is Not Ready to Commit
5 Signs She is Into You
How to Tell if He is Already Married

None of these are from experts. None of these give citations or include scientific rigor of any sort. Most of the advice you find in stories like this is generic and terrible. They are written to get an audience reaction, they’re a social reinforcer, but they are also bad advice.

I wonder how many women wrongly suspected a loved one was lying because,as the “How to Tell He’s Lying” article suggested, he said ‘but’ too many times or because, as suggested by “How to Tell if He is Already Married,” he always schedules dates for the same time and day. In reality, some people simply suck at communication and may try to compensate by using a lot of conditional words and ‘but’ is the easiest to use conditional word that we have. Furthermore, most of us adults work and have schedules. These schedules restrict when we are available for social time, even to the point of creating only one decent night off per week.

It also sucks to think that a man might base his decisions to ask a woman out again or kiss her on if she conforms to a list of 27 signs. That article did list a few things sort-of correctly — lip-touching, mirroring and leaning-in happens more frequently when women are interested in someone (Moore, 1998) — but the article didn’t give reasons or citations for this, and it was slightly misleading even with valid information. It loses all that it might have gained from that, though, when it said, “Note: birthday girls of any age are easy–doubly so at decade markers.” and girls “bring up antimatter and black holes, or any other such pseudobrainy and vaguely sexual topic for discussion.”

Pseudobrainy? Pseudobrainy?! (I am pausing from writing this so I can grumble my offense under my breath).

The woo that goes along with relationship advice outnumbers the valid science tremendously (I really wish I had a statistic on this, but I don’t think there is one). Right now, pretty much anyone can write articles on dating advice and there is no consequence except the possibility for a fat paycheck for telling other people how to date. Just googling the words ‘dating advice’ by itself, with no question or added filters leads to a full page of websites, none of which are from experts of any related sort.

So what is there to do about this? Well, I think people need to arm themselves against dating woo as much as they do against any other form. People need to learn to use logic, science and critical thinking as much when they’re looking for relationship or sex advice as they are with any other important issue. If you see a dating advice article, look up the writer’s credentials and then look up the information given. Studies on courtship behavior have been around for quite a long time, they just haven’t managed to filter through to the mainstream media, for some  reason. Since it is so difficult to find valid information, here are a few tips:

When you have a question about relationships, try to use more technical terms and use google. For example, proceptivity refers to the act of beginning and reinforcing a progression of a sexual interaction with someone. This includes anything from just getting a date to actually trying to get sex. You can also use terms like ‘mate selection’ and ‘psychology’ to try to filter out misleading articles. Also, remember to use Google Scholar to find peer-reviewed research.

Is that a lot of work just for a date? Yes, it is, but I hope you’ll thank me for it.

=======
This post, He’s Just Not That Into You – But I Can’t Prove It, originally appeared on She Thought on August 22, 2010.
=======

But then I got to really thinking (look out!) . . . while there have been arguments out there that boycotts may work, I am not here to argue the effectiveness of boycotts (although they can indeed be effective towards diminishing a business’ stock value, a la Pruitt & Friedman, 1986) . I’m here to present to pro-boycotters/pro-equal rights people a deeper issue: is boycotting really consistent with your efforts towards maintaining equal rights and/or morality? Let me explain. Equal rights means equality for all, correct? Everyone has the fundamental right to, well, fundamental rights–shelter, food, marriage, life, liberty, happiness, etc–that is, unless they get those rights taken away by committing heinous crimes or something. So be careful what your boycotting actions might really be doing, not just essentially saying . . . it’s the “doing” that is probably most important.

So you want to stop shopping at Target forevermore in the name of equal rights. Fine. What if enough people actually did boycott to where it might hurt Target’s revenue? What do you think would happen first? Would the CEO say “Sorry, let me go ahead and donate more of my money to a pro-gay politician?” Highly doubtful (and according to the Human Rights Campaign, Target actually has refused to “right this wrong” monetarily for the moment). First of all, because it’s unlikely, not from a semantic point of view, but  from a practical point of view (and isn’t that predominately how successful businesses operate?). How could the higher-ups (or anyone) at Target really know that their diminished revenue is from the boycotting? Are they going to spend tons of money to conduct some kind of correlational study like Pruitt & Friedman? Negative. Realistically, the first practical step would be for them to make some cuts within their company, like, oh, I don’t know, cutting hours or LAYING OFF their employees who never saw it coming? This seems more likely to happen first, followed by a decrease in buying inventory in bulk to save more money. When businesses start to lose money, do you really think they won’t first do this before anything else? I’m no business major, but it never occurred to me that their first step would be to drain their own pockets.

So how are the people who got laid-off any more deserving of this denial of fundamental rights than gay people (or any other group)? We’re for equal rights, then we better not seem like we are “pro-equal rights but just for a specific group of people.” Trust me, I wanted to boycott BP (Arco) and Target immediately, but then I started feeling badly about the middle-aged manager at the local Arco who could get hypothetically get laid-off because hardly anyone buys their gas there anymore; he has a family too. I highly doubt Mr. Arco Gas Attendant had anything to do with the evil oil spill, yet we are quick to scream “disservice” and take away our services when something horrific like the oil spill does happen.

Look, the pro-equality/pro-boycotters’ intentions are TOTALLY NOBLE! I still haven’t shopped at Target, Best Buy or Arco, but I can’t say that I won’t again. The media about boycotting alone should direct enough attention towards the CEOs to do something before revenues are actually down enough for them to start executing lay-offs, and I HOPE that’s what does happen. But it may not.

Anyway, food for thought, but what do I know? Please discuss and debate with me on this, my fellow critical thinkers!

References: Pruitt, S.W. and Monroe Friedman. 1986. Determining the Effectiveness of Consumer Boycotts: A Stock Price Analysis of Their Impact on Corporate Targets.” Journal of Consumer Policy, 9: 375-387.

=======
This post, My Boycotting Dilemma, originally appeared on She Thought on August 21, 2010.
=======