Japanese politician Shintaro Ishihara got in trouble recently for some comments he made after a college lecture. The lecturer said that the most harmful thing that human civilization has created are old hags, and that it is sinful for any woman to live any longer once she has lost the ability to bear children. Ishihara said "[The professor's words] make some sense, but I myself cannot say such things because I am a politician."
This struck me as one of the most honest and forthcoming thing a politician has ever said. I don't nescessarily agree with his views (there's not enough context around the quotation to know how Ishihara feels about "old hags"), but I respect him for admiting that he cannot say certain things due to his public image.
It's fashionable to hate the RIAA. The word on the net is that they've been suing people pretty much randomly for file sharing violations, including a young girl (I forget the exact age, but it's 1 digit long), and an old grandma who doesn't even own a computer. I think my opinion of the RIAA is closer to "neutral" than most people; I'm neutral because I don't have a first hand account of their actions. I mean, people say they're suing people left and right, but I haven't been sued, and nobody I know has been sued...
I'm not saying that I nescessarily doubt the charges against the RIAA, just that I don't have enough (direct) information to make an informed opinion. Assuming they really are that "evil", there'll be enough voices condemning them without my help. And if there are a significant number of voices praising them such that my vote would actually make a different, maybe I'd better hear the praiser's side of the story too before voicing my opinion.
So with that explanation out of the way, and with a tone of true neutrality, I'm reporting that someone is suing the RIAA.
Tanya Andersen, a 41 year old disabled single mother living in Oregon, has countersued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.
Ms. Andersen's counterclaims demand a trial by jury.
In other words, she's suing the RIAA for unfairly suing her, and people are loving it.
Good for her!
I hope she wins, so that the RIAA can see that what they're doing wastes our time and the money they're so keen on preventing the loss of through piracy.
Rather than hoping she wins, I hope justice prevails. There's a difference.
The Dalai Lama was invited to give a lecture at a neuroscience convention.
The Dalai Lama has had a long interest in science and has maintained an ongoing dialogue with leading neuroscientists for more than 15 years, which is the reason he was invited to speak at the meeting. It has been agreed that the talk will not be about religion or politics.
Carol Barnes, the president of the Society for Neuroscience
Unfortunately, there has been some protests to this event, including a petition protesting the Dalai Lama's lecture with, at the time of writing, over 900 signatures.
I don't think it's appropriate to have a prominent religious leader at a scientific event.
[...]
Inviting the Dalai Lama to lecture on neuroscience of meditation is of poor scientific taste because it will highlight a subject with hyperbolic claims, limited research and compromised scientific rigour.
- Dr. Jianguo G. Gu, neuroscientist
I don't have anything against the Dalai Lama, and I'm not planning on going to the neurscience convention, so quite pragmatically, I don't really give a damn whether or not the Dalai Lama gives his lecture. It just strikes me as very odd that a scientist would be against a certain lecture being presented at a certain convention. The "way of the scientist", I believe, is to look arrive at truth by looking at all the evidence, not just the evidence which supports the truth one wants to arrive at. If you think the idea that there might be a link between Buddhism and neuroscience is nonsense, then just don't attend the lecture. If no one attends the lecture, the organizers will know for next year that they probably shouldn't invite the Dalai Lama again. If a lot of neuroscientists attend the lecture, then maybe there's something to this Buddhism thing that neuroscientists should look at. It might be worth noting that the Dalai Lama and the Chinese haven't been getting along recently for political reasons and that Dr. Gu, the person who started the petition, is Chinese.
I'm not against Buddhism. [...] It could be a slippery road if neuroscientists begin to blur the border between science and religious practices.
- Dr. Jianguo G. Gu
This is a good point; if it's okay for the Dalai Lama to give a lecture at a neuroscience conference, why can't we teach intelligent design in public schools? Because neuroscientists can choose not to attend the lecture, but children cannot choose to not attend public school. One would hope that once someone has become a neuroscientist, that they have become a mature enough adult that they can form their own opinions about things, and will not fall prey to contentless Buddhist propaganda. One would also hope that these same mature adults will not deny other mature adults from hearing the lectures that they want to hear.
The controversy was initiated by the SfN selection, not by scientists who had to react when the sensitivity of its membership has not been considered during the selection of a controversial symbol. It appears that SfN?s choice of the Dalai Lama shows a preference of publicity over substance, celebrity over quality.
The SfN has announced that ?in the question-and-answer period, questions from the audience will be written on cards and passed to selected SfN leaders posted in each aisle?. This restriction of free discussion seems to show that SfN is offering an uncritical forum for the speaker or the controversial scientific basis (or lack of it) of the talk.
[...]
If a lecture on "the Neuroscience of Meditation" has to be delivered at SfN, it is arguable who is more qualified: the Dalai Lama, or Hindu and Muslim leaders who can claim longer history of meditation. Choosing the Dalai Lama is arbitrary and may have shown favoritism towards one brand of meditation associated with a specific religion.
- Dr. Jianguo G. Gu
These are also all very valid points; but if 900 people really do feel that the "SfN" is biased or has some other secret motive, this is enough supporters to organize a new conference. I'd assume that the lack of lectures on the link between Hindu and Muslim style meditation and neuroscience would be due to a lack of study in such a field. If the SfN actively refused Hindu or Muslim-based neuroscience lectures, then I'd suspect favoritism as well, but if no one had actually written a lecture for these lectures, how is it the SfN's fault?
Regarding the lecturer who supposedly said that the most harmful thing that human civilization has created are old hags, my comment would be that the lecturer obviously misunderstood what human civilization is about. It is precisely when a race or a culture has evolved enough that it is willing to shelter and protect all its members, regardeless of their usefulness to the survival of the community, that it becomes a civilization. Therefore a community that would promote or even tolerate the killing of one of its members once he/she outlives his/her «usefulness» would be more acurately described as barbaric than civilized.
As to the Dalai Lama lecture, I think you spot the real reason for the protest: Professor Gu is obviously shilling for his government and the objections he gives are stupid red herrings. A real scientist/intellectual would not be part of any censorship action, so the real reason Gu is starting his petition is because the Chinese government is angered by any marks of interest or popularity for the Dalai Lama in other countries. Shame on Professor Gu!