It has been brought to my attention that a number of readers and science bloggers seem to be wondering if Monday’s post means I am retiring from the blogosphere. I’m not, but am glad to see that reflection on the devolving state of science blogs–and their tendency to be more sport and spectacle than science–seems to have resonated broadly with over 400 comments and counting. I will have more to say on science blogging shortly, but first a few words on why I’m posting less frequently…
Foremost, blogging should not be a daily requirement. For me, it began in 2006 when I lost a bet with students–as Cornelia Dean explained in her terrific book. I found I enjoyed the interactive exchange and the way it helped me to make sense of all of the endless ideas spinning around in my head everyday. But a good blog post is the result of inspiration, and over time it started to feel like homework. I’d work a full day at Duke, or edit my book for hours, and scramble for something to get on the blog as an afterthought. Blogging stopped feeling cathartic and became more burdensome while juggling work, travel, talks, some semblance of a social life, and wedding planning. So I’ve decided it’s time to change the way I contribute. From now on, I’ll write only when inspired. This may happen a few times a week or a few times a day. We’ll see how it goes.
And more importantly, I’m busier than usual this month because David and I are headed to Austin, Texas! I’ll be very sad to leave the incredible Pimm Group at Duke, but I’m also so excited about what’s coming next! While I’ll always stay connected to the marine realm, there’s another crucial area I’ve been growing more and more interested to pursue and there’s no better place to do so than Texas. So here’s the big–related–announcement:
The Intersection is about to become an energy blog. I’ll have more to say on that soon so keep watching… you ain’t seen nothing yet!
Joe Romm has an important post about the folks down in Texas who are constantly trying to bring the textbooks into line with ideology. This is something we usually think of as affecting the evolution issue, but no–climate change is also a topic that is being watched closely by the watchers of educational content.
Romm himself is linking a Washington Monthly piece called “Revisionaries,” which reports the following:
A similar scenario played out during the battle over science standards, which reached a crescendo in early 2009. Despite the overwhelming consensus among scientists that climate change exists, the group rammed through a last-minute amendment requiring students to “analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming.” This, in essence, mandates the teaching of climate-change denial. What’s more, they scrubbed the standards of any reference to the fact that the universe is roughly fourteen billion years old, because this timeline conflicts with biblical accounts of creation.
The strategy is identical, isn’t it? “Critically analyze” evolution, “critically analyze” climate change…and smuggle bad science into the classroom to sow doubt and confuse the kids. Frankly, I am wondering these days if climate denial may not be growing into an even more massive phenomenon than evolution denial in the US. I doubt it has the potential to be as long-lived. But the intensity of it, which I feel every day now, simply dwarfs what’s going on in the evolution fight….
It reads like an Onion piece or maybe something John Oliver would ‘report on’, but this story’s no joke… Lawmakers in the Lone Star State may have taken their efforts to prohibit same-sex marriages too far–for everyone.
Texas’ gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages
By Dave Montgomery
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
AUSTIN — Texans: Are you really married?
Maybe not.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.
The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
No, we’re not likely to see the dismantling of marriages across Texas, but according to Radnofsky, the clear language of Subsection B brings up legal questions about spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance, and more. Go read the full article here.
It’s a mythical monster that drinks the blood of livestock, reeks of sulphur, and strangely resembles your average coyote, and one man thinks it wandered into a local barn.
Jerry Ayer, a teacher at the Blanco Taxidermy School in Blanco, Texas, came into possession of a mysterious creature when a student’s cousin found it in his barn in Rosenberg, roughly 40 miles southwest of Houston. Not knowing what it was, they poisoned it and contacted Ayer, who has seen a wide variety of animals as a taxidermist for 10 years.
So begins an article on Dallas’ NBC news, before going on to describe ‘the chupacabra possibility’. Sigh.
Yet again, another mystery critter has surfaced to create a big stir in the media and the public can’t seem to get enough. As usual this story is making top headlines around the world from CNN to the L.A. Times.
Personally, I’m skeptical it’s a ‘blood-sucking mythical beast‘ and have a feeling the ill-fated critter may be some kind of strange coyote. (Occam’s razor anyone?) But regardless, it would be nice if we could get past celebrating every dead animal conspiracy theory and focus popular attention on stories that really matter.
