There is some truth in that(main)

Eric Schwitzgebel has, along with Changbing Huang, a new paper on color sensation in dreams. I've discussed before Schwitzgebel's treatment of the surprising sociological data, that in the 1940s and '50s, most experts and laypersons in America believed that dreaming was an exclusively black-and-white phenomenon. Today, of course, most people report dreaming in color, as, apparently, did people before the mid-twentieth century. Schwitzgebel's explanation is that our reports of dreams track our experiences of film media -- that in the '40s and '50s, people took their dreams to be in black-and-white because they generalized their experiences of black-and-white films to their experiences of their dreams. (That's why I'm so interested in this theory -- it fits very well into my view, according to which to experience a dream *is* to experience a fiction.)

The new paper, Do We Dream in Color? Cultural Variations and Skepticism, marshals new data for Schwitzgebel's view that color reports in dreams tracks exposure to black-and-white media. He considers survey results from students in various regions of China, who have had various levels of exposure to black-and-white and color film at various points in their lives. I have not looked thoroughly at the data itself, but Schwitzgebel takes it to corroborate his theory. I take this also to count in favor of my theory.

Thanks to Brian's papers blog for the link.

I see a new weblog dedicated to the philosophy of art. It is called philosophy of art. Theoretically, that's kind of one of my interests. I'll plan to start following it... although my blog-following has not been up to form since my return from England (nor, obviously, has my blogging). I expect to get back into things before too long -- next week when I'm back in Providence, if not sooner.

I'm back in the U.S. after an amazing time at the International Gilbert & Sullivan Festival. I hope to get back into the blogging swing of things in the next day or so. I've been writing about the festival here.

Posting has been light the past week or two. This should be good practice for the next two and a half weeks, in which I expect posting here to be VERY light, or possibly non-existent. I'm leaving tomorrow for the International Gilbert & Sullivan Festival in Buxton, England. I won't return to the U.S. until August 18, and I don't really expect to blog here or at FBC until then. I will also not be accessible by phone. (This will be my first extended period since I got a cell phone during which I won't be using it. It's random things like that that make me nervous.)

I will check email at least sometimes, and I hope to do a fair amount of blogging about Buxton in my Buxton Diary. Have a good two-and-a-half weeks, everyone.

The Texas textbook situation is worse than I'd realized. The Texas Freedom Network gives this press release. I quote the whole thing because I don't have enough time to clip and analyze.

FROM BAD TO WORSE: PUBLISHERS MAKE RECKLESS CHANGES TO PROPOSED NEW HEALTH TEXTBOOKS

Leading Publisher Glencoe Says 'Protected Sex' Is a High-Risk Behavior for STDs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 28, 2004
Contact:
Dan Quinn, Communications Director, Texas Freedom Network
512-322-0545

AUSTIN – Documents released by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) reveal that publishers have agreed to make reckless new changes to their proposed high school health textbooks. One publisher even equates unprotected and protected sex, calling both "high-risk behaviors" for acquiring sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

The changes came at the insistence of state review panelists who evaluated the textbooks in June. The panelists included teachers, parents and other Texas citizens who are not experts in science, medicine or health education.

"Replacing no information about sex education in the textbooks with bad information will have dangerous consequences for Texas teenagers," said Samantha Smoot, president of the Texas Freedom Network. "To raise responsible, healthy adults, families need the most accurate and reliable information possible, not dangerously misleading facts."

Glencoe/McGraw-Hill agreed to change in its Glencoe Health book a list of behaviors that place people at high risk for STDs. The passage (on page 649) had included, "Engaging in unprotected sex." The new passage now reads, "Engaging in either unprotected or protected sex."

"Glencoe's change contradicts established medical research," said Janet P. Realini, M.D., M.P.H., chair of the Texas Medical Association's Committee on Maternal and Perinatal Health. Dr. Realini is also coordinator for Project WORTH, the city of San Antonio's teen-pregnancy prevention program. "The change would also endanger teens by discouraging efforts to protect themselves from HIV/AIDS and other STDs."

Dr. Realini also said Glencoe failed to correct a part of the same passage stating that barrier protection "is not effective at all" against humanpapillomavirus (HPV). Some HPV strains can cause cervical cancer. "Condom use reduces the risk of HPV diseases such as genital warts and cervical cancer," she said. Dr. Realini pointed out the textbook's error at a July 14 hearing before the State Board of Education (SBOE).

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also notes the importance of latex condoms in preventing STDs, especially HIV: "Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/condoms.htm)

Holt, Rinehart and Winston also made changes to its textbook, Lifetime Health. Holt added more information about the effectiveness of abstinence in preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs. Yet Holt added nothing about the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of barrier protection and other contraceptive methods. The Holt and two Glencoe textbooks, Glencoe Health and Health and Wellness, still lack this basic information. The information is required by Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum standard 7i.

Thomson/Delmar Learning added nine substantial references to abstinence in its textbook, Essentials of Health and Wellness. Delmar Learning also added information about the effectiveness of condoms and oral contraception.

The SBOE has scheduled a second public hearing on the textbooks for September 8. The board will vote in November to approve the textbooks for adoption or to reject them. Until that time, publishers may make additional changes to the books.

The Texas Freedom Network is a non-partisan, grassroots organization of nearly 19,000 religious and community leaders who advance a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties to counter the religious right. TFN, Planned Parenthood and other organizations have joined together in the Protect Our Kids campaign (www.protectourkids.com) for responsible health textbooks.

According to ethicsdaily.com, 33% of Americans favor a Constitutional amendment to establish Christianity as the national religion. 59% favor the teaching of Creationism in public schools, and over 80% approve of government-sanctioned references to God and religion, such as in the pledge of allegiance.

Today I discover the following definition in the Texas Penal Code:

(42) "Reasonable belief" means a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent man in the same circumstances as the actor.

So apparently, an insane and irresponsable woman's belief that she is an ordinary, responsible man is reasonable. False, but reasonable. Take that, Clayton!

Blogging has been light lately. I've been busy.

BugMeNot.com is a great web site. It generates login information for online newspapers and such things, so that you can bypass annoying free registrations to read stuff.

I read via Focus on the Family the following about the Child Custody Protection Act, a bill proposed to criminalize the transport of minors across state lines to avoid parental notification requirements for abortions:

The House is expected to again pass the Child Custody Protection Act, but the measure faces stiff opposition from the Senate. The first time this bill was introduced in 1998 it was blocked in the Senate by the Clinton administration.

I'm a little embarrassed about the possibility that this question has a really simple answer that I ought to know, but how does a Presidential administration block Senate action on a bill? The Executive check is the veto, which happens after the bill passes both chambers. The only way I can think of in which the Clinton administration could have "blocked" the CCPA in the Senate was if Al Gore had cast a tie-breaker vote in his faculty as President of the Senate. I don't *think* that happened, but I haven't been able to find records online. If it was merely a case of Presidential lobbying against the bill, it's disingenuous to say they "blocked" it.