The Nightly Build
News of His Death Exaggerated
The famous physicist Stephen Hawking was taken to hospital
Monday and was reported to be "very ill." On Tuesday, he was reported
to be resting comfortably and his family is looking forward to his
complete recovery, according to a statement issued by Cambridge
University.
How did local media cover the story? Rod Dreher, in The Dallas
Morning News Opinion blog, headlined his thoughts, "Stephen
Hawking: obit editorial material?" When readers objected to "yack[ing]
up someone's obituary before they're dead", Dreher deftly laid off
responsibility on his co-workers: "Keven said we should take this to
the blog. She was right to do so, because (as Nicole put it), part of
this blog's raison d'etre is to show readers how we do our jobs."
Discussing the guidelines the paper uses to decide which figures
merit an obit editorial is a fair subject for this blog.
Assigning writers to prepare obit editorials well in advance for
significant public figures who may merit an obit editorial is sensible.
But asking the blog, whether a particular person who takes ill
merits an obit editorial should he die, is in bad taste. That's true
whether or not it's consistent with the purpose of the blog.
Now that we've settled that it's too early to talk about Stephen
Hawking's obituary, is it too late to ask that The Dallas Morning
News revive its Science section?
P.S. Kudos to Trey Garrison, who caught Dreher explaining that
whether or not a famous person's death merits an editorial often comes
down to a "matter of space and timing." "You did that on purpose"
Garrison said.
Terri Leo on the Defensive
The Texas State Board of Education recently took votes to decide
the standards for science textbooks used in Texas schools.
Conservatives on the SBOE have long championed language that requires
textbooks teach "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories such
as evolution. Scientists have no objection to teaching strengths and
weaknesses, but some do object to non-scientists like the SBOE members
using such language to push schools to teach non-scientific notions
such as Creationism, or its pseudo-scientific variant, intelligent
design.
The recent SBOE votes on new standards were mixed. Creationists
were unsuccessful in retaining the old "strengths and weaknesses"
language in the science standards. But the Creationists were
successful in inserting similar language requiring Texas students
learn "all sides of scientific evidence." Again, there's nothing wrong
with that, provided that Creationism and intelligent design are not
passed off as scientific.
Will Lutz Terri Leo, a Creationist member of the SBOE, goes on the attack in
an
op-ed column in Dallas Blog (naturally!). Or is she on the
defensive? She objects to recent moves in Austin to shift some
responsibilities away from the SBOE. SB 2275, for example, would take
away from the SBOE authority over curriculum and texbooks.
Leo defends the SBOE and its anti-scientific actions. She says it
is popularly elected (as if scientific questions are best answered by
popular vote). She says the SBOE holds public hearings at which all
sides are presented (she doesn't say expert opinion is consistently
ignored by some members). She says the SBOE has accomplished much
(like suppressing environmentalism and multi-culturalism in schools).
But it's what she doesn't say that is the tell-tale sign that she
and the Creationists on the SBOE are on the defensive. She doesn't
bring up evolution or intelligent design at all. Perhaps the SBOE has
finally gone too far, their attempts to push Creationism in public
schools have finally gotten the public's attention, the legislature is
finally saying enough is enough. It's time to put science curriculum
and textbook decision back in the hands of experienced educators and
scientific experts and take it away from ideological politicians like
Terri Leo.
P.S. Texas voters can end this educational travesty once and for
all by voting to remove these members from the SBOE as their terms
expire: Terri Leo, David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, Cynthia Dunbar,
Gail Lowe, Don McLeroy and Ken Mercer. Do it for the sake of quality
science education in Texas.
Correction: The Dallas Blog article was apparently written by Will Lutz, not Terri Leo. See the comments for more information.
"Shut up he explained"
Wick Allison, publisher of D Magazine
announced on its FrontBurner blog today that henceforth,
reader comments will be disabled.
"Many of our commenters have been thoughtful and intelligent, but as
months turned into years, Gresham's Law took hold. Comments
became increasingly intemperate, irrelevant, and illiterate. Some good
people hung on, but many good people left. The concept of
user-generated content is fine -- for other Internet sites. But
for ours, it has not been a successful experiment."
Like no one could see that coming. FrontBurner, which prides
itself on being a "snarky celebration of ignorance," becomes
overwhelmed by ignorant, snarky readers. Poetic justice. Hoist on his
own petard and all that.
Are there alternatives? Allison hints that, in time,
FrontBurner may be technologically capable of allowing comments
from invited participants. Perhaps FrontBurner will consider a
system like Yahoo! Groups, which can be set to require comments from
new readers to be approved before being posted. Readers who
demonstrate their ability to be thoughtful would be approved to post
directly. Or perhaps FrontBurner will consider a system like
Slashdot's, where reader comments are rated and, by default, only the
highest rated are visible. Or perhaps FrontBurner is just not
interested in readers' opinions. This latest action is the equivalent
of Wick Allison sticking his fingers in his ears and saying, "Nyah,
nyah, nyah, nyah. I can't hear you!" Which, come to think of it, is a
snarky celebration of ignorance, as well.
