The Internet is the Devil (bwahahahaha)

 I hate complaints about the internet. Specifically, I hate this. If you click this linky, you are redirected to the Cracked website, and one its more recent offerings called "5 Scientific Ways the Internet is Dividing Us". That got my attention immediately. 5! Scientific? Dividing.... ways?!? The headlines got a number, it's got the word science in it (as all reputable internet sources do, lol). What more could a girl want? So let's count the "5 Errors Made by the Article '5 Scientific Ways the Internet is Dividing Us'".

#5. Re: New Algorithms That Make Sure You Only Talk To People Who Agree With You: Reversal of the Direction of Causation
The basic point of #5 is simple: Facebook has created a new algorithm that filters your friends updates by placing posts from friends you agree with higher in your newsfeed. "Why missy", you might ask, "is Mark Zuckerberg some kind of wizard?" To which I would reply "possibly, but entirely beside the point." FB knows becuase it tracks the links you click on. Try not to fall onto the floor having a stroke out of the sheer shock of knowing that you clicks are tracked. As a result of this, you're losing the opportunity to encounter opposing viewpoints that you might otherwise have been exposed, in effect, closing yourself off from any info that could contradict what you already believe. This means, according to the article, that visiting FB is like entering a world populated by 'yes men', encouraging us to hold inaccurate views because we are denied access to differing points of view or people who might tell us we are wrong.

The Problem: I know, I know. I was floored too that someone accused Facebook of causing/exacerbating social ills, so take a moment to compose yourself and let the shock wear off. The problem with this is that it reverses the direction of causation. The algorithm only measures links you click on, and then puts similar links higher up on your newsfeed. If you weren't already consuming information that agreed with you, then the algorithm would never have moved that information to the top of your newsfeed. It is precisely because we spend so much time reading things that we agree with that FB pushes this content to the top. If we were reading a fair sampling of articles from both sides, then our newsfeed would reflect this too. Hence, this algorithm only reflects your reading behavior. FB might be an enabler, but that's a far cry from the kind of unseemly information segregation the article implies.

So Fb enables us? Isn't that bad? I don't think so. Last time I checked, FB was not your mommy and its role is not to force you to behave like a responsible adult. If you are a grown up, you should know that the responsible thing to do is to listen to both sides of an argument prior to forming an opinion or making a judgement. If you don't, well that's not FB's problem. It's yours.

And even in the worst case scenario, if everything the article said was actually an accurate portrayal of reality, then all you would have to do is scroll down to see these forbidden posts or- God forbid (or whatever)- visit your friend's page.

Yes, Raisin Face, you can- and that is only ONE of the many features of FB

But if you don't know how to work the 'down' on the mouse, or there are FB friends whose page you NEVER visit, then you have larger issues than an algorithm.

#4. Re: New Methods to Make Misinformation Spread Faster: But it Also Proportionately Increases the Speed by Which Such Misinformation Can Be Corrected by Accurate Information From Reputable Sources and #3 Re: User Submitted News Sights The Create Thought Bubbles

Alright- #4 is pretty simple too. The basic gist of it is that the internet, specifically sites like Digg and Reddit, democratize information and expedite the spread of misinformation and hoaxes. I happen to think this is true- with a caveat.

The Problem: The information expedites access to ALL sorts of information- the good and the bad.  Which means you might hear a hoax, an out-of-context quote, or an out and out lie faster, but you also have the means to fact check that material with equal ease- assuming you know how the search bar works. This is another instance where it's not the fault of the internet that it's users are lazy and nothing about Reddit makes it so that its users only vote for sensationalized, less-than-factual stories. These stories are represented and popularized because people already accept them as fact without any further thought. In addition, hoaxes and misinformation have gone hand-in-hand with every form of mass media that has ever existed. The internet is actually a vast improvement over oft-biased print articles. To check the accuracy of those one had to visit the library (assuming you were literate), which is considerably harder than using Google (or Bing).And again... if you are really SUPER confused about whether Bob's Wild World of Boobs is a legitimate source of information, than the problem is not the internet. The problem is that you're an idiot. In short, I'm not convinced that intelligent are being woefully misinformed because of the internet. I think intelligent people promote stories that are fun to read, and those are often sensational. I also think these same intelligent people know that they are not real- and the writer of the article has no info to the contrary. I also believe that stupid people believe stupid things- but that demographic has always had stupid beliefs.

#3 is a variation of the same theme and has the same problems. Attitude polarization and confirmation bias are human behavioral staples that long predated the internet, and would exist without any help from it. This aspect of internet use is merely a reflection of a preexisting human tendency.

#2- Re: Discussion Formats That Encourage Us To Be Negative

The claim here is that internet discussion forums are geared towards loud negative people. Since we are a culture that's short on time, we reward individuals for negativity, because we assume that people who participate in a positive way will continue to do so w/out any positive reinforcement.

The Problem: Fine, but that's also the case in reality. How often have screaming, frothing receipt-less enraged costumers been given their money back in clear violation of store policy? How often have you remembered a single negative comment from a friend, when it would otherwise be invisible in a sea of positive feedback? The impulse that leads us to focus on the negative online, leads us to do the exact same thing in real life.

I want to point out that we're talking about an internet article on the way the internet is dividing us, that was posted by one of my friends on FB,  which entirely ignores the hundreds of ways FB unites us... like FB!

There. Pointed out. Moving on.

#1- Re: The Divisive Gap Between Internet Users and Everyone Else

Okay, this one is not even really about science you guys. It's more like a summary of statistics regarding who has and/or uses the internet and who doesn't.The claim is that there is a gap between those who access the internet and those who don't.

The Problem: The fact that my Grandma may not understand lolcat references is meaningless. It's quite likely that even if my Grandma used the internet, she still would not get lolcat references simply because of the vast generational gap. There's no reason that the gap exacerbated by the internet is one that results in significant changes in relationships between ourselves and our grandparents.

Furthermore, that fact that poor countries and poor areas of wealthy countries lack internet is symptomatic of the thing that truly creates cultural divisions between the rich and the poor- being rich or being poor. Would we really have more in common with Ethiopia if they had an internet connection? Oh my bad! If they could only scope the DailyDawdle, or if we couldn't, the inequities in education, basic sanitation, access to medical care, housing, and nutrition would be rendered meaningless!

The internet did not invent human nature. Like all other human tools, it is simply a reflection of it.

A Short of Homecoming

I am actually astonished that between now and my last post, this blog has gotten 942 hits. What I can't quite put my finger on is why. Not that I genuinely care. I don't. Not really. Also, if I haven't publisher your comments, it's not because I have too many commenting awaiting moderation (I don't), or because I was gone (I get emails every time I get a new comment). I didn't publish it because I didn't like what you had to say (I hate you) and I think you're banal. Your comment was neither provocative enough to warrant a small expenditure of some of my amazing time offering you a reply, or your comment was just mindlessly cheering me on (like I need any encouragement). Tell your therapist about it. He gets paid to listen to you whine about things he/she has no emotional investment in.BTW there's nothing inherently interesting about the fact that you're offended or that you disagree with me- and I don't have to publish your comments simply because you have a differing point of view. You disagree? Start your own blog and disagree the hell out of my posts on. Hell, I might even read and 'like' it on FB (put prob not).
Well, I'm back, and it feels good to be home.

The Smoking Baby

You know, quite frankly, I'm shocked at you people. First you attack a toddler's right to kick back with a relaxing smoke, then what? Before you know it, you'll be saying that we shouldn't let kindergartners openly carry a firearm (it's their 2nd amendment right, god damn it.). The kid works a 14 hour day, the least you could do is let him enjoy a pack of cigarettes in peace... Hell, in some countries, that kid's old enough to vote and raise his own family.
Of course I'm kidding. No country actually allows toddlers to vote (though Texas may have the death penalty for pre-k criminals). Naturally, the toddler doesn't work 14 hours a day (only 8...)
I'm joking- mostly. What I actually find disturbing is the appalling hypocrisy of peoples' response to the smoking baby video. Indonesia, along with many other poor nations, has a long standing history of child labor. I'm not interested in passing moral judgment on the countries or parents who participate in child labor, because I feel that's beside the point. The point, of course, is that well fed, educated (relatively speaking), suburban Americans were outraged at the idea of an Indonesian toddler smoking, but apparently those same Americans are not really bothered by the idea of that same toddler going to work (full time) for exploitative companies in conditions that would be legally unfit to keep a pet in here in this country a few years down the road.
Based on that logic it would be preferable to send your child to work at a shoe factory or garment industry for $0.22 an hour, than to give that same child a cigarette. While I'd be inclined to agree that both of those endeavors are hazardous- I would disagree that the former was necessarily better than the later (according to one recent report, factories were paying child laborers a meager $4.53 a week for working 7-13 hour shifts 7 days a week in hazardous conditions).
This is not a call to action, partially because I find that terribly gauche.  Chances are, you've made a conscious decision to ignore child labor in third world countries, and that is your right. Part of America's beloved freedom means we aren't required to care about the fate of others. But stop pretending that you do.
Stop posting on your blog about how much you worry for this boy. Don't tell me on Facebook how many health problems he's at risk for. And stop chastising his parents for allowing him to "destroy" himself (your sneakers say 'made in Indonesia' don't they?).
At least have the guts to square with your apathy.
In my opinion, your "sympathy" is another link a long chain of exploitation. In this case, it isn't exploiting him for cheap labor, it's exploiting him for a cheap ego boost. Attacking the very visible vice of smoking makes us feel good and reassures us of our moral supremacy (and thus our unspoken right to exploit "lesser" people without feeling bad about it). Similar tactics were used to justify the exploitation, dislocation, enslavement, and murder of countless populations throughout human history.
There will be those who, when called on their obvious hypocrisy, will respond by saying "OMG! I am so against child labor! I think we should protest all those companies who don't pay children a fair wage!"
What an insipid solution. This may surprise you, but the kids aren't working to get a jump on their 401 K plans. Children in Third World are forced to work because it's often an economic necessity. They have to work to support their families. Simply putting them out of work is not going to solve the underlying issues that create national poverty. In fact, it might have the opposite effect and drive more children into illicit activities just to maintain some semblance of their standard of living.
There is no easy solution to child labor problems. Raising minimum wage tends to drive exploitative labor to another country who is willing to work for pennies, so they can produce goods to sell to consumers, who would shop elsewhere is the businesses raised the prices of their wares.
It's easy for Americans to say they will do the right thing with their money, put in practice, they haven't. The right thing is a difficult, if not impossible, thing to do.
However- stifle the urge to fly into a self-righteous diatribe, ranting like you're the holiest thing since Bono, on your FB every time a small sliver of the reality endured by poorer nations hits YouTube. One of the few things that I find more offensive than cigarettes are self-congratulatory hypocrites.

The Ghost of Phoebe Prince

The story of Phoebe Prince, the Irish girl who hung herself after a series of encounters with alleged bullies, reminds me of Columbine. There's no good news- only a chronology of events that go from bad to worse.
Make no mistake people, it isn't the redundant cynicism of the story that bothers me-  but a willingness to uncritically accept guilt or innocence based on little more than emotional pandering. (I was actually astonished at the venom directed towards those kids by many adults.)
When the story first broke, claiming that Phoebe Prince had been bullied by her classmates to the point of committing suicide, I was skeptical.
To clarify- I wasn't skeptical that Phoebe committed suicide. I wasn't skeptical that an older boy had a relationship with her that he ended. I wasn't skeptical that her romantic rivals behaved cruelly towards her. I was skeptical that a person is driven to suicide, that something could cause an otherwise normal person to suddenly become suicidal.
In every case of suicide I have ever heard of, suicide is the culmination of persistent, chronic (often lifelong) psychological and emotional issues. Evidence suggests that suicide has a strong biological component. Depression and suicide are both linked to low levels of serotonin- and there's evidence that genetic factors also play a role in suicidal behavior. Other personality disorders further increase the likelihood of suicide.
Nonhuman animals commit suicide too.
(Before anyone jumps on me about it, I'd like to state that I don't believe that the same type of self-destruct sequence seen in other lifeforms is exactly the same as human suicide. I'm merely pointing out that suicide is not unique to humans- and that alone merits further investigation into the phenomenon. It also means that if nonhuman animals can terminate themselves in absence of complex internal dialogue, then maybe a similar stress response exists in humans, outside of the actions of other people.  It could also be argued that the animals studied were responding to environmental stress by killing themselves- hence returning blame to outside factors. Still, that doesn't explain why some things terminate, and others don't, even when confronted with the same stressors. Suffice it to say, suicide is an abnormal response to comparatively normal stimuli. So there.)
Now I've sidetracked myself- I'm not interested in debating the degree to which biological factors contributed to Phoebe's death.  My point is, that there were other factors in her death. Well before the now-infamous South Hadley bullying bout, in 2008, Phoebe was cutting herself severely enough to cause scarring. She was on Prozac and Seroquel. Seroquel was used in her first suicide attempt following a break-up, two months before any of the alleged bullying related to the current case even took place.
None of this condones the actions of the South Hadley teens- but what exactly were those actions? The specifics of what occurred not only vary, but just don't seem that severe. (Sorry.) From what I've read, Prince was called a 'slut' in person and on Facebook, Twitter, and Craigslist. Her books were knocked from her hands (although according to some, this can't be corroborated). Threatening text messages were sent to her phone. She had an empty can of soda tossed at her head from a moving car. While that's horrible- it's not unheard of.
(And for those of you who are wondering, yes I have had things thrown at me. I have had my books knocked out of my hands. I was never called a slut [that I know of], but I have been called other choice names. It isn't fun. It hurts. But it does happen and probably always will.)
Those kids behaved like real assholes. On that matter, I am 100% convinced.... but are they criminals? One of the basic precepts of American justice is that a person has to intend to do something wrong. Even if it isn't the standard for committing a crime (ignorance of the law doesn't excuse breaking it so on and so forth...) the lack of intent to commit a crime usually mitigates the crime itself, at least in the eyes of the public.
I don't think the South Hadley kids were trying to kill Phoebe (if they were, they probably would have thrown something sharper from the car... I joke. I joke. Please don't text me death threats, you bullies.) Those kids have not had the benefit of the mitigating effect associated with lacking intent- at least in part, because everyone's been bullied (don't waste my time telling me you're the one kid who was never EVER bullied. I think you're full of it.). Those painful, personal memories can be difficult to see past.
Even if I extend the benefit of the doubt to those who claim to have never been bullied- they've at least seen it on TV, and isn't that the most credible and realistic medium for the diffusion of information?
To complicate matters further, Phoebe's parents were outraged and wondered why the school officials didn't do more to save their daughter. Yeah. Why? But Mr. and Mrs. Parents of Phoebe, I must also ask, why didn't you do more to save your daughter? As a mother, if my daughter had attempted suicide, the first place she'd be headed would be to a hospital with lots and lots of therapy- not back to school. Why didn't the parents know about this bullying- and if they did- why didn't they do something about it? If your child has a history of self-mutilation, attempted suicide, and severe mood disorders, it stands to reason that you might want to monitor things like cell phone use and computers. After all, her parents fundamental gripe was that because Phoebe was troubled someone should have paid more careful attention and been more proactive- but that door swings both ways. It was within her mother's power to disconnect the cell phone and remove the bullies' ability to torment her daughter. She could even have called the cops (which, as a tattler, I would have done). Yet she did none of that, and that makes her parents at least as responsible as the school officials- if not more so. And as adults, aren't they ALL more responsible for the tragedy than the children who stand to face jail time?
I could muster some self-righteous, anti-bullying ire if I thought about every time I was ever bullied. In fact, I did when I first began reading Phoebe's story- but then another uncomfortable thought crept into my mind. I certainly have said my fair share of mean things: You're stupid. Were you raised by boars? What's wrong with you, dumbass? Are you some kind of moron? Wow... nice highlights. Did you use the Clorox bleach pen? I've probably given as good as I've gotten, and I think that's true of everyone.
Again, there are those of you who lie to yourselves and say "Not me. No,no,no, no." To those people... well I'm simply not interested in holding a conversation with a group of deluded vagabonds. For the rest of you, every kid I've ever known, who could be identified as a 'victim' of bullying, was at least as savage as his/her bullies behind their backs. I've known nerds who made fun of fat people. I've known fat people who make fun of red necks. I've known red necks who make fun of homosexuals- and the cycle of disdain goes on and on. 
At the end of the day- we share the role of bully and bullied- embodying both at once. It just happens to be easier to remember all the times where we took it, rather than dished it out.
In addition, portraying bullying as a social phenomenon practiced by some routinely, rather than a circumstantial social occurrence that's practiced to some extent everywhere, obstructs our ability to understand human nature in an objective way.
Our species didn't invent bullying. Chimpanzees are noted for their aggressive social maneuvering, as are others species of nonhuman primates. Competition for access to mates, in particular, can be incredibly fierce.
I am not one of those people who think that kids will be kids, and that it's a 'normal' for kids to ruthlessly terrorize their peers. I simply think sending the South Hadley kids to jail won't send a message about justice and won't save kids like Phoebe. Even if 'vulnerable' children are sheltered in high school, what happens when they leave the cocoon of the public education system? Do they have special services set up to make sure they remain immune from the kinds of negative social interactions all the rest of us face? Who protects them then? Inevitably, life throws everyone a curve ball, and for people with psychological issues those curve balls can be deal breakers.
The South Hadley 'bullies' should be punished, but they should be punished based on their intent- not based on our anger towards our own bullies or impersonal ideals of moral perfection. In other words, they should be punished the way you would want your kid punished if they were guilty of the same crimes.
I mentioned a parallel between this case and Columbine. In both, young lives were senselessly lost. Blame was tossed in every direction. From Columbine, what ultimately emerged was a witch hunt, were schools pulled 'troubled kids'  from their classes to "talk"(read= 'kids in black or wearing trench coats'- occasionally they hit on a bona fide weirdo but most of the time it was the usual suspects who happened to have the misfortune of having too many piercings) . Kids were deprived of their education by being sent home from school for offenses as innocuous and inane as refusing to turn T-shirts inside out (that happened to me).
None of it amounted to anything of course. There was no feared global trench coat mafia lurking in the shadows waiting to kill their high schools. There's absolutely no evidence that any of those rules deemed so necessary in the wake of Columbine ever prevented any bullying (if anything, singling kids out to go to special talking groups only made them more of a target for their peers). Nor is their proof that it prevented any school shootings.
That's because Columbine was never about Marilyn Manson T-shirts or bullying. It was about two very disturbed young men who suffered from a myriad of psychological and emotional problems. Bullying and societal apathy may have shaped their psychosis- but it didn't create it. Everyone exploited easy scapegoats- video games, bullies, and Manson but no one made a serious attempt to look at the boys' pre-existing problems. The trouble with that kind of selective reasoning is that it reinforces incorrect ideas about why things like Columbine and Phoebe Prince's unfortunate suicide happen.
The Prince case is shaping up to be a witch hunt too, although the subjects of these hunts are not completely innocent. 
But rather than waste time needlessly persecuting overworked school officials, or sending 17-year-old girls to prison, why not discuss ways to better recognize kids actually in need of mental health care services. Or perhaps highlighting the need to better understand the biological factors that make someone predisposed to suicide. Maybe the parents could speak out about the lessons they learned from their tragedy. Then perhaps some good could come out of the loss of a bright, young girl and lives could be saved.
I disagree with those that trumpet empathy as a means to eradicate social meanness. It can't. Meanness is an integral part of human nature- you can't shame it into non-existence. The ability to act like an asshole is a universal human skill. Examining the reason why we're mean and what role it serves would be more useful than championing simple solutions to issues that are inherently complex.
What I think is most ironic-the press uses terms like 'evil brood' and "Mean Girls' to describe the children involved... (just a reminder, they haven't had due process and they aren't even able to vote) which is a little like the things they're condemning the 'evil brood' for doing to Phoebe Prince in the first place. So who are the real bullies in the end?

The Somewhat Quarterly Moron Report- The Ignominy Awards

 

Typically, I use this blog as a platform to talk about simply being stupid. Stupid can be explained in a variety of ways, but mostly the offending party has limited culpability, because they're dumb!  I make fun of them, and you laugh about it (assholes), and it's good times. But sometimes laughing isn't enough. Sometimes, people are so absurdly dumb that they SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES for it, because sometimes ignorance is inexcusable.

This is my salute to that very special brand of stupid... without further ado, The Ignominy Awards!

STUPID GIRLS 

I don’t actually know why this is a category. Most girls seem to be stupid. That statement sounds sexist. That’s because it is.  However, the simple fact that my statement is sexist doesn’t make it untrue.

(I don’t think that the stupid is biological… I don’t know if that makes it better or worse… )
The girls I’ve met who aren’t vapid, babbling vacuums are few and far between, but even in a category that seems predisposed towards stupid, there are some who attain breathtaking new levels of dumbness. For example, the girl who asked “Do you think the bus ride from Michigan to Germany will be long?” or the one who thought Henry Ford was once the President of the United States.
(For her, this is some ongoing issue, because she also thought Ben Franklin was one of our Presidents- which goes to show that the illustrated version of American History may not necessarily be the best choice for a high school textbook. Incidentally ladies… I‘ve never heard any comparable comments out of the guys… I‘m just throwing that out there…)
These are the unique women who write “I Luf Edward Cullen” on their binders, only they spell Edward with an ‘I’ and Cullen with a heart somehow. So to you people (and I use that term loosely)…
There is such a things as stupid questions, and you ask them.  Stop it. I do not succumb to the egalitarian notion that everyone should participate in everything, so I think it’s best for all parties involved if you guys drop out of school and leap right into your careers- become crack whores now, because studies show that there won’t be enough crack whores to meet this country’s demand in the future.
I hate to be the one to tell you this (no, I don’t really hate it) but if you think there are two Pacific Oceans because that’s how it looks on a flat world map, then you SHOULDN’T be a nurse. Nobody needs medical help from you, and quite frankly I cringe at the idea that you may one day be processing any of my paperwork.
Just stop it. Not everybody has to get an education. That’s what welfare is for!
Didn’t you ever wonder why every time a woman becomes a powerful lawyer or politician she’s plastered on every cover and written about in magazines? They don’t do that for men, and the reason why is because smart, educated women are hard to find.
Unfortunately… stupid girls have no such problem.
You Should Be Ashamed of Yourself.
As I said, I don’t think the stupid is biological. I think it is the result of a society that talks a good game about equality but has no real standards of achievement for women. That’s where individual initiative should come in. Read a book once in a while so you don’t sound like such a moron.  Buy a map. Hire a tutor and learn how to do basic addition, so when you’re at the register we don’t have to stand there for an hour and a half behind you while you try in vain to add 5.93 to 4.99 to see if you did indeed get the sale price.  Or just pull your head out of your ass once in a while so you don’t ask questions like “Is Spicy Thai Soup spicy?”
And for God sakes, put your f***ing cell phone away because nobody wants to get your stupid texts (kk?)- accept for other stupid girls and the date rapists that love them.

AGNOSTICS WHO TAKE THEIR KIDS TO CHURCH

Another group of people who should be ashamed of themselves? People who say they don’t support organized religion, but claim in an ever-so-self-congratulatory tone to take their kids to church because their kids were “searching” and wanted to know about religion. Who the hell do you think you’re fooling? If you have deep belief in religion and you want to foster that in your children, go for it. I will be happy to take on you and your litter some other day to argue the merits of your position. BUT- at least you were honest and I respect that.
You people, on the other hand, are completely and totally full of shit. You supposedly think religion is a form of brain-washing that teaches people to be conformists, but in spite of your strong views, you take your children to church? In other words, you are subjecting your children to something that is damaging in your personal estimation because they wanted to be subjected to it?
That’s a little like letting your kid learn about nature by playing with rabid raccoons (next time little Johnny will listen when you tell him to leave varmints alone… he may be dead but hey… ya got to make sacrifices when you’re a parent.)
If you believe an experience is bad, you’re supposed to try to keep your kid AWAY from it stupid.
Now there are those who will argue with me and say you have to allow your children to make choices, so if your kindergartener wants to go to church you should let them be exposed to it.
Again, I hate to be the one letting you in on these little secrets, but KIDS DON’T KNOW WHAT’S GOOD FOR THEM! That’s why they need adults in the first place. You know what my daughter wanted for a snack in kindergarten? Play-doh.
That hardly sounds like the meal of choice for a spiritual seeker contemplating the existential mysteries of life and beyond.
Then there are those specialized morons who drag their kids from a Catholic church, to a mosque, to a pagan blessing, and finally to a synagogue just to round things out.
Do you know what you’re teaching your kids about what you believe? Nothing. More specifically you’re teaching your kids that you believe in NOTHING. You have no idea what’s right or wrong, or worse, that there is no right or wrong. The only thing they take from the experience is that religion is no more of a commitment than the color of your nail polish.
Discovering meaningful things about yourself requires introspection beyond what a 5 year old is capable of.
You’re not raising Buddha. You’re only raising the next generation of morons who thinks religion is a game and spirituality can be bought online for $24.99 plus shipping and handling.
You Should Be Ashamed of Yourself!

PEOPLE WHO *HEART* HAITI

Awww. You love Haiti do you? What’s that? You gave a dollar (a whole dollar!) to help the poor starving orphans? Good for you! So, since you love Haiti so much I guess that means you can find it on a map right?
Oh what’s that? You don’t own a map? Because you gave your dollar to orphans!?
You despicable phony bastards… Haiti, the Caribbean island nation, was the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, suffered a severe shortage of medical care, and was caught in nigh-endless cycle of violent political upheaval for most of it’s existence. Where was your dollar then?
In your wallet, that’s where. It wasn’t until equally despicable, exploitative celebrities started tweeting because the few meager things the Haitians actually did have got destroyed in a devastating earthquake that anyone here knew what Haiti was, let alone sent any money.
The only reason most Americans have given any money to Haiti is because it makes it easier for you people to forgive yourselves for being so completely and thoroughly oblivious to any real global issues. Giving a dollar to the Haiti relief fund makes it easier for us to forget that places like Haiti actually exists and helps us get back to the business of eating French Fries and driving to our garbage cans to throw away our trash.
You Should Be Ashamed of Yourself!
Exploiting the misery of already miserable people is one of the most morally reprehensible (completely ubiquitous) things to emerge from our gluttonous, self-indulgent society.
For the most part, I’m not any better. But then again, I don’t claim to be. I don’t download “save Haiti” wallpaper for my desktop. I don’t buy “help Haiti” pins so that $0.30 of my $2.99 goes to help the unfortunate victims of the earthquake.
But I do know about Haiti’s political turmoil. I would support actions that would bring long term stability to the area. Oh…. And I can find it on the map. 

Control Group- Subject #02 Not-So-Psychic Predictions

#1 I believe that the stability of the globes climate is going to take a leap and 

spiral downward 

#2 I believe a big TV icon shall die in the same base publicity as Michael Jackson

or Billy Mayse 

#3 Therese going to be an assassination attempt on President Obama 

#4 Nasa shall make yet another great discovery in the cosmos 

#5 The 2012 prophecy is going to escalate 

#6 The war in the east is going to take a sudden turn 

#7 a breakthrough in cancer treatment 

#8  A great scandal "similar to Quammy Kilpatric" in high places 

#9 Many people will die in natural disasters this year 

#10 and Dan dirty apes shall inherit the earth! lol jkjkjk 

The economy shall greatly stabilize

My Not-So-Psychic Predictions For 2010

1. I predict that obesity is going to be a real problem this year. I mean it's going to get really out of control. I think a lot of states in the south are going to have real problems with it.

2. I predict that there's going to be a lot of turmoil between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

3. I think Jessica Simpson is going to end up having a few relationship problems this year. She's going to be very hurt and I think the people around her see this coming.

4. Obama is not going to have an easy year. Something that he does is going to strike a nerve and I really think it's going to be about gay marriage.

5. The South is in for some real rough weather this year. I see flooding and hurricanes.

6. Winter in the midwest will be pretty much average, but  think it will start out mild, but then there will be some real cold days.

7. There going to introduce a new medication, like Viagra, but not. It's going to be for some kind of condition relating to erectile dysfunction.

8. There's going to be a lot hybrid sales this year. Consumers are going to get fed up with paying for gas, so I think more people will buy hybrids.

9. There's going to be a really crazy work out trend that gets started. It's going to be very strange, and I think it's going to involve some sort of special equipment.

10. The Harry Potter movie is going to be huge. The kids are going to start to branch out once the movie is over. The girl who plays Hermoine is going to really head towards becoming a serious, dramatic actress.

Step one of a control group,check.

Sylvia Browne's Not So Psychic Predictions

In light of the recent posts on Skepticblog regarding Sylvia Browne, I felt it was necessary to add my two cents. (Imagine that).  I decided to take several of Sylvia’s end-of-year predictions from the past several years, and compare them with what has actually happened. This isn’t new.  Smugbaldy did this for several years. He divided his results into 4 separate groups, Hits, Misses, False Alarm, and Correct Rejection and created a complex system of scoring.  There are a few flaws in his methodology  and weaknesses in his classification system, however, that led me to do it my way.
1) Baldy had no mechanism that allowed for a comprehensive analysis. He evaluated each year separately, and came up with a new figure, rather than average her averages to find out what her typical rate of accuracy was. 2) His system of classification was unnecessarily complicated. A ‘Correct Rejection’ is still an incorrect prediction, and there appears to be no practical reason to separate them. The same goes for a False Alarm. There appeared to be no standardized criteria to separate a ‘false alarm’ from a miss, and both are simply incorrect. 3) He uses unproven assumptions in his calculations. In some instances he marks a correct prediction as incorrect because it was possible that Sylvia had ‘foreknowledge’. However it is equally possible that she did not have foreknowledge.  If you are claiming to be objectively evaluating data, then you are obligated to do it objectively, regardless of your personal opinions.
It turns out that there is no reason to ‘pad the data’, because Sylvia is pretty damn wrong on her own. To reach my results, I divided her predictions into several categories: Correct, Incorrect, Cannot Be Verified, and Obvious. I’d like to note that ‘obvious predictions’ are the smallest percentages and they had to be really really obvious for me to place them in this category. Some examples of these are when Sylvia predicted tornadoes would hit Kansas and Texas, two states in tornado alley.  Do you think tornadoes would be likely or unlikely in a place known as Tornado Alley. I don’t think Francine (Sylvia’s spirit guide who tells her the future) is necessary for that one. Another example of an ‘obvious’ prediction is when Sylvia predicted that Jamie Lynn Spears would have her baby.  The fact that Jamie was pregnant was already common knowledge, and having a baby obviously follows being pregnant. One could argue that there are events like miscarriages, but events like that are far from likely, and they typically don’t strike wealthy females who can afford the best doctors. Other predictions can’t be verified. For exmple, Sylvia predicted that Owen Wilson would have another “dip” into depression after his highly publicized suicide attempt.
What kind of prediction is that?
What constitutes a dip? A dip in who’s opinion? Sylvia’s? Owen’s? The lack of specificity makes it impossible to evaluate whether or not the prediction was accurate.
(In my opinion, I have “dips” into depression occasionally. I think everyone does)
I managed to thoroughly evaluate predictions for the years 2007-2008 (58 predictions total). Here are her statistics:
In 2007, 24 out of 39 predictions were incorrect (61.538%). 6 out of 39 were correct (15.385%). 8 out of 39 couldn’t be verified (20.513%). 1 out of 39 were obvious predictions (2. 564%). ß that was the Tornado Alley prediction.
In 2008, 9 out of 19 were incorrect (43.368%). 5 out of 19 predictions were correct (26.315%). 4 out of 19 could not be verified (21.052%). 1 out of 19 was obvious (5.263%).
That means Sylvia was wrong in her year-ahead predictions about 52.453% of the time. (You’d be better off flipping a coin.) She was only right about 20.85% of the time. Her predictions were too vague to evaluate about 20.783% of the time and simply obvious the remaining 3.914% of the time.
Does that count as being psychic. Supporters will point ot the fact that my own experiment yielded a success rate of only about 11%, and Sylvia’s success rate was almost double that. That’s true, by my respondents had to guess one word out of a random sequence of 20. Some of the predictions that I counted as correct for Sylvia included such banal fair as “a democrat’ will be the next president. She had a 50/50 shot of getting it right. Some other 50/50 questions she got wrong- for example she predicted that Tom Kat’s baby would be a boy, but Suri was a girl.
But I digress… as I began to evaluated Sylvia’s predictions for 2009, I began to notice a pattern. She predicted the same events over and over again. She’s been predicting that this will be the year that Brad and Angelina break up every year since 2007. Coincidentally, she also predicted Jennifer Aniston would marry, 3 times in a row, that Lindsay Lohan would straighten her life out make a comeback in 2008 (and that’s obviously wrong unless Sylvia Browne has VERY different definition of comeback than you and I).
She has predicted that the war will end for 3 consecutive years, and each time she’s been wrong Her latest not-so-psychic prediction says the war will end this year... pass that one on to the top brass).
Now it stands to reason, if you make the same predictions year after year, you’re bound to be right one year. I can predict with a 100% certainty that the war in Iraq will end one day, the part that would make that somehow psychic would be if I could tell you the day it would end… or the month… or ever the correct year. C’mon! Francine needs to get her story straight…
The weirder thing is Sylvia’s own interpretation of her accuracy.  She claims to have predicted Obama would be the next president, but in 2006 she claimed that Kerry and McCain would be the presidential candidates and Kerry would win. Do you frequently confuse Kerry and Obama, because from where I’m standing there’s a huge difference.  Is her spirit guide blind? In 2007, she predicted we wouldn’t have a black president for another 8 years. Obama was elected in 2008, and 2008 + 8 = 2016. Francine is not only blind, but also shitty at math.
BY DEFINITION, A PSYCHIC CAN NEVER BE WRONG. A psychic has to know the future, that’s what makes them psychic in the first place. Theoretically that means all of their predictions would be accurate. If any are wrong, then the psychic obviously didn’t know what was going to happen and was only guessing- hence they aren’t psychic.
Even if we want to play make believe and we pretend that Francine is real and she tells Sylvia the future, how does that change the fact that Francine is typically wrong? If your spirit is only guessing does that make you special?
I see no compelling evidence to support the idea that Sylvia is psychic. One thing bothers me though… there’s no control group. In order to be a solid case study, I would have to prove that Sylvia is accurate with about the same frequency as a non-psychic person. Since I have no statistics from a control group, my case study is flawed.
I don’t intend to all that oversight to continue…. I’m making some predictions of my own, and I’m going to conduct another mini-experiment to valid my conclusions.



Sources Used to List and Validate Predictions (Go Ahead, Check My Stats... Unlike Sylvia's, Mine Are Right)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSKzKv5fwck&NR=1&feature=fvwp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmNP6wZJg6A
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123085598438247705.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqdJNrkUv8c&feature=related
http://realestate.yahoo.com/Foreclosures/2008-year-end-foreclosure-market-report
http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2009/04/08/legalmatch-data-shows-foreclosure-rates-skyrocketed-in-2008/
http://www.smugbaldy.com/2008/01/22/how-well-did-sylvia-browne-do-with-her-2007-predictions/
http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=06
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/stats-surv.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/whooping.htm
http://www.tmz.com/

Pick A Sign, Any Sign

I don’t now, nor have I ever, believed in psychics. Vague or obvious predictions don’t impress me.  In fact,  I’m rather hard to impress in general.  I have, however, had several friends who do believe in psychics, and some who consult psychics regularly. One of my friends poured a considerable amount of her money into psychic readings, and it started to get on my nerves. Typically, I have a policy of not directly interfering in my friend’s lives- but in my opinion this qualified as an exception. My friend assured me that this psychic was the “real deal” and she offered to set up an appointment, and I agreed only because I was absolutely certain that I could debunk this “real deal”. I let her refer me, but the caveat was that I wanted her to tell the psychic nothing about me and I wanted to make my own appointment. I heard that some psychics do background checks on clients to find out basic information in advance. So I lied about my name, and made the appointment under a friend’s name (with her permission of course). I didn’t trust my friend to not pass along vital information, so I fed her false information about when I would make my appointment and I didn’t mention that I would use a different name. So when I went, I was quite surprised when one of the first statements the psychic made was “you’re a Scorpio aren’t you?”
(I am). I was incredulous.
The friend, who’s name I had used, was a Leo not a Scorpio. I had selected her for that reason. So it was impossible for the psychic to have gotten that information from a background check. It was unlikely that the friend who had referred me was aware of my ruse, and hence unlikely that she could have been an informant. That only left the friend who had lent me her name- and it was doubtful that she would have assisted the psychic because she was as skeptical as I was.
I could not arrive at an explanation that sufficiently explained my experience. It was possible that it was a lucky guess, a damn lucky guess. The other possibility was that she  was psychic, but I’m not convinced of that for reason’s I will explain later.
I couldn’t leave it alone. In spite of the fact that this happened years ago, I was haunted by the fact that I was unable to solve this mystery. When the topic of Sylvia Browne came up, I decided that I wanted to conduct an experiment to see how likely it was that a “non-psychic” could correctly guess a random zodiac sign.
The methodology of the experiment was fairly straightforward. I would assemble several lists of 20 zodiac signs at random. To prevent any unknown variable from impacting the experiment, I wrote all 12 zodiac signs on slips of paper that were identical in size and material. Those slips of paper were placed inside a bag, the bag was shaken, and then I drew a slip of paper from the bag, recorded the result, and placed the slip back into the bag. This was repeated 20 times, in 4 separate sets.
I selected 20 people from my list of family and friends, and asked them to participate in the experiment by making a list of 20 zodiac signs.
18 of 20 individuals responded with a list. I then proceeded to compare their answers to my random lists of 20.
My hypothesis was that each person would most likely guess one correct sign out of twenty, but in reality, the number was slightly higher.  After comparing the experimental set of 20 against the random ones, the median number of total correct guesses were 4, but the average was slightly higher: 4.29. That means that out of 40 random signs, the average non-psychic person guessed correctly 10.73% of the times.
The number of correct guesses ranged from 0-10 . My sister guessed correctly most frequently, and averaged 2.5 correct guesses in each set.
However improbable,  a lucky guess is entirely possible- according to my mini-experiment it can occur 10.73% of the time.
However, if I was going to try to convince someone I had psychic powers, I would probably approach the task with a bit more of a method.  I would use census figures to sketch out a portrait of each demographic by examining census records. From the extrapolated data, I would make seemingly specific predictions based on my guess of the client’s approximate age. Theoretically, if the census reflected the information that more babies between 1980-1981 were born between October and November it would be fairly easy to guess that people approximately that age (do the math you lazy bastards) would  be statistically more likely to be a Libra or a Scorpio. This information is attainable at various website like this one : http://www.babycenter.com/0_22-surprising-facts-about-birth-in-the-united-states_1372273.bc.
I’d naturally be wrong sometimes- but never fear because a good talker can work around a simple stumbling block like inaccuracy. I would just say “Oh well I am definitely seeing Scorpio (Libra, ect) around you. Do you know someone who is that sign?” or how about this gem “I bet that Scorpio is in a strong house in your chart!”
Quite frankly, I do not know for certain that my chum’s psychic friend used this strategy. I do, however, know for certain that the psychic friend’s predictions for me were way off. She told me I’d change jobs, nothing remotely close to that happened in any reasonable span of time- and we can only assume that she was making predictions for the near future, since almost anyone could predict that an individual will change jobs at sometime in their lives. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average person born in the later half of the baby boom held 10.8 jobs between the ages of 18 to 42.  Most of these jobs were held between the ages of 18 to 27.
She made vague predictions that “something” will be happening in my love life. Nothing new “happened” in my love life.
She also told me that I was worried about my income (I wasn’t particularly worried) and that I would “stable out” (I don’t even know what ‘stabling out is, and thus I can’t evaluate that statement). About the only specific information she gave me was my zodiac sign… and I already knew that.
The World’s Foremost Psychic herself, Sylvie Browne did not fair any better, but I will address that shortly in a separate post. But if you’re psychic maybe you can just read my mind… don’t forget that if dearies.

Shermer and Chopra- A Love Affair

I read the transcript of the recent debate between Deepak Chopra, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Shermer (I was unfortunately unable to watch the debate on Larry King Live).  The subject of the debate was ‘Near Death Experience’ and the possibility of an afterlife. This is by no means the first debate on the subject. In fact, Michael Shermer has previously debated Chopra before on the topic of an afterlife.
I think in each debate Shermer misses the target. I agree with his aim, but I disagree with his approach. I don’t want to say that Shermer routinely brings a knife to a gun fight, because that’s giving Chopra too much credit. I’d rather say Shermer routinely brings a knife to a rubber chicken fight.
Regardless of how articulate or well thought-out Shermer’s arguments are, he just can’t keep pace with Chopra’s vague soliloquies. Shermer accurately observes that Chopra talks in Deepakese, a language which seems to be constructed to say as little as possible about anything. Shermer offered some genuinely hilarious examples on his True/Slant page, like this pearl of convolution:

“Birth and death are space-time events in the continuum of life. So the opposite of life is not death. The opposite of death is birth. And the opposite of birth is death. And life is the continuum of birth and death, which goes on and on.”

(A comment which tells us absolutely nothing useful about life, death, or Chopra’s take on it. Though I believe most people would answer, if asked what the opposite of life was, would answer ‘death’, I think the question is flawed. If being dead is not the opposite of being alive, then what objectively is? That’s the opening that Chopra uses to insert his opinions of what life after death consists of, but whatever ‘being dead’ may entail to each individual it still amounts to the same condition of not being alive in one‘s current incarnation. Technically birth and death are events at the opposite end of life, but pointing this out underscores no important truth since everyone generally gets the idea in the first place. It’s just exploiting a syntactical oversight that gives the impression of depth when there is none. The next important component in this statement is Chopra‘s assertion that the cycle of life and death goes ‘on and on‘- a fact which Chopra has no way of knowing or confirming without relying on foggy recollections of persons in an altered state of mind. This habit of attaching an unconfirmed theory to a proven fact is another nasty habit of Chopra‘s which I‘ll get into later…)

Shermer points out another interesting example of Deepakese:

“There are traditions that say the in-body experience is a socially induced collective hallucination. We do not exist in the body. The body exists in us. We do not exist in the world. The world exists in us.”

Simply stating that traditions exists that supports your beliefs does not really mean that those beliefs are accurate. Cross-culturally hundreds of ‘traditions’ exist, many which blatantly contradict others. Are all of the traditions are right? Well they can’t be, obviously. The only reason a person would point out the existence of a ‘tradition’ would be to make an argument to authority, a sort of modified, specialized ad populum fallacy. Because a lot of people believed it, and believed it for a long time as indicated by the word ‘tradition’, it must be correct.

It’s correct unless you consult someone from a different tradition…
That statement also makes a claim that, at the outset, cannot be proven or disproven. How could we prove that we are not a collective hallucination?

(I think, therefore I am. Or nowadays, I blog, therefore I am. But how couldI know I am not hallucinating that thought? Maybe we all live in the Matrix…)

The problem with arguments like this is that when you reduce them to their simplest parts, nothing is real- and that idea is simply useless. Whether we’re a collective hallucination or not we will eventually starve to death if we don’t eat  (and while the length of time may vary greatly from individual to individual, as mystics claim, and no one may necessarily agree on what happens after the fact) the fact remains that you physically die if you don’t eat. The same goes for meeting other biological needs. That underscores the necessity of having an agreed upon reality, whether that reality exists solely because we’re the hallucination of a Martian  that’s dreaming and he made these rules up, or whatever silliness you want to substitute.

As I’ve said before, Dr. Chopra’s ideas about reincarnation and life after death could be correct, I can’t disprove them, however I can point out that he completely lacks any objective evidence to support them. Regardless of the reasons Chopra can’t produce evidence to support his claims, Agent Smith, gremlins, aliens, Shermer, it doesn’t change the fact that the only person who can validate Chopra’s claim is Chopra- and we can’t really expect him to have an objective opinion on the topic. No matter what the reason is, if information can’t be validated then it has no basis in this reality, however valid it might be in the multiple realities that exist in Chopra’s head.

Beyond life and death, some of what Chopra says is just nutty. Here is one Shermer omitted, that I found stupid.

“One very important phrase there: existing scientific knowledge. I don't think science and spirituality are things that are enemies. You know? Science has always looked at the world objectively. When we're looking at consciousness, it is our consciousness that's looking at consciousness.”

Hey guys… I’m going to impart to you a revelation here… if  I’m looking at the mirror evaluating myself, then it’s only me evaluating the self that I’m looking at. You feel me? That’s a big funking duh! Thanks for that because I know I never could have pieced that together Chopra…

I can’t take the time to point out every silly thing Chopra says, because nearly every that comes out of his mouth is silly. Aside from silliness, Chopra’s primary endeavor was making fun of Shermer by repeatedly asking stupid questions “Is it your networks we’re talking to?” “Is it your neurons?” Even by my standards, it was juvenile bullying at it’s worst, and Shermer was scarcely able to get a word in.  When he did get a chance to be heard, the response was typically laughter from the three (stooges) in the studio.

Later Chopra followed the debate up with a bloggish entry about how much he dislikes the term ‘woo woo’ (a derogatory term used by ‘skeptics’ and one that wasn’t used in the debate) and went on to say how little anything skeptics called him mattered and how nothing Shermer said really bugged him. (And that's only his trillionth entry about how little he cares what skeptics think about his woo woo... and I meant absolutely nothing dirty by that!) I find it unusual to devote such a volume of words to telling the world precisely how little you noticed whatever you’re writing at length about.

The fact that Shermer and Chopra continue to debate one another, then promptly complain about the debate, seems reminiscent of an old married couple. In the strangest way, the two seem meant for each other.

(And if I had any sense of timing, I would have written this for Valentine’s Day…. Damn it!)

The bigger problem is that it points to a willingness to substitute depth for convolution. Anything that rings of spirituality, however hollow, is followed with a nigh religious zeal.



Well, at least there's some good news for Chopra... even is he loses debates to Shermer for the rest of his life he can always try again in his next life... that is.... assuming his theories are correct.

Climategate

I reserved commenting on the events of Climategate until all necessary information was present and accounted for. A lot of individuals from the scientific community rushed forward to support the climate scientists. Opponents of anthropogenic global warming took advantage of the opportunity to exploit the leaked emails and proclaim global warming to be a hoax.  Most people seemed to agree that the scientists had done something wrong, but could not reach a consensus regarding what that something was and the extent to which it was wrong.
The fact that a small handful of climate scientists may have tampered with data didn’t impress me. The case for global warming is strong. It’s effects can be immediately and empirically verified, and experts from numerous disciplines can present data that would be consistent with global climate change.
(For you clever readers, I do understand that evidence of climate change is not necessarily evidence of anthropogenic climate change. However, if we agree that there is a symbiotic relationship between climate and the biological life it supports, it would be hard to imagine that altering an ecosystem or environment to the degree that man has in many cases had absolutely no consequences. It would be counterintuitive to believe that altering or destroying features that play a role in regulating the planet’s climate would not effect the climate at all. That‘s silly.) 
So I wasn’t moved to try to persuade the masses that climate science was valid, because a few emails doesn’t significantly undermine years of inter-disciplinary research. It seemed to be a crisis that would blow over quickly, and not have much impact on public opinion.
However, then the full report of the emails was released, following review by the AP.
It concluded what every reasonable person already expected- ‘Climategate Emails Do Not Reveal Fraud’. I heaved a sigh of relief, thinking that I had been correct. Then I read the article. They may not have committed fraud, but the emails were nonetheless troubling. They showed how angry the climate scientists had grown with their skeptics, and the degree to which they were frustrated by FOI requests and public opinion.
But was there response justified? One quote taken from the emails, regarding the death of a global warming skeptic, said “In an odd way this is cheering news!".  Another said that the best way to address critics was  by "continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" There were allusions to attempts to keep skeptics from obtaining data. A third scientist said of a critic "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted." Those remarks seemed more damaging and embarrassing to science than any of the excerpts alleging fraud.
It was a clear reminder that all scientists are human, and sometimes humans behave rather badly.
It bothered me that once the angry shouts of ‘fraud’ died down, no one had anything to say about what actually transpired.
There is a common expectation for scientists to be objective in all their endeavors and, of course, that’s impossible. Scientists are people… blah, blah, blah. But we aren’t talking a spat with the missus or an angry email to a sister. It isn’t unreasonable to expect that scientists should demonstrate objectivity towards the data they’ve gathered. While it’s understandable to not waste your time indulging laymen, the emails pertained largely to skeptical colleagues- fellow climate scientists. Part of being a scientist means being able to retain objectivity when evaluating data and having your own data/conclusions scrutinized.
If being objective and scrutinized isn’t your strong suit then maybe you should find a different job, because chances are, you’re not cut out for research science.
(I hear hotel management is a nice field…)
The same goes for the responses of the scientists in question towards FOI requests. If it’s your intention to tell people that they’re going to be microwaved by their own planet (which seems to be the prevailing idea of global warming’s end result, at least in the public’s imagination), then you should be prepared for scared people to argue up and down that you’re wrong, and frightened people will do nearly anything to avoid reaching the conclusion that terrifies them. This includes filing frivolous FOI demands.
Human evolution sparks the same angry controversy and the same degree of terror in it’s opponents. Implying that humans evolved on this planet, rather than being designed or created, is tantamount to saying there’s no God in the eyes of extremists. That’s a scary thought for them.
If that type of response is not something you’re prepared to deal with then maybe you should become a receptionist, or at the very least work in a less controversial field of science.
The appropriate response to the emails should have been a unanimous rebuke of the scientists in question. After all, I doubt anyone would tolerate comments like that coming out of  their children (they call that cyber bullying now). I find it hard to imagine that it’s more acceptable when it’s coming from highly-educated, grown-ups with access to crucial information regarding an issue that effects the whole of our species.
Of course, all of this would mean more coming from me if I didn’t get so agitated with creationists  who demand an explanation of our primate lineage, solely so they can try (as best they can) to pick it apart. I  quickly learned how to deal with those people. I just tell them Jesus told me humans evolved on the planet, and he wrote it down on a napkin. Buddha signed it, but then my dinosaur ate it.
It’s an absolutely ineffective way to persuade anyone of anything- but then again, who says it’s possible to persuade them? Creationists and global warming doubters have such an investment in their beliefs that if the overwhelming evidence already available hasn’t convinced them, it’s doubtful that me (or climate scientists) restating it will have any impact on their views.
Attempting to convince people who have made up their mind to not be convinced is pointless (and it will give you a migraine).
As science becomes a more important fixture of our society, it becomes necessary for us to define societies relationship with it. That could mean restricting FOI requests, or creating new penalties for avoiding  submitting to them. Numerous solutions would make sense. It doesn’t make sense to allow scientists to get away with behavior that would be unacceptable by virtually anyone else.

The Ghost of Dummies Yet To Come- I'm Sorry, Oh Wait...

Let me preface this by saying I’m sorry. Now, that I’ve said that, let me tell you that I’m not. I am NOT sorry.
(I just wanted to get your attention)
I’m not sorry for calling people who believe they’re vampires morons. I’m not sorry for insisting the term “skeptical community” is retarded and that anybody who refers to themselves as a member of that ‘community’ is an elitist twit searching for a place to belong because they’re antisocial, confused, quasi-pedagoguery is generally frowned upon by everyone. 
Everyone is sorry. The American ideal of freedom allows anyone to hold any view you like… as long as you feel bad about it.
There’s nothing really wrong with being sorry. When one makes an error, it’s perfectly acceptable to be contrite. The problem is that constant apologetics eventually distort reality. Why is it so wrong to hurt someone’s feelings? Aren’t some hurtful things true?
Aren’t some people fat? Or gross? Or habitual losers? Or wrong? Or stupid? Or banal?
While it’s doubtful you’ll win any citizenship awards, those criticisms can be perfectly valid in certain circumstances. There are fat people. There are losers. There are idiots and all other sorts of undesirable types of people.
(For those of you into fat acceptance, you may be offended by the fat that I implied fat people are ‘undesirable’. While I am aware of your plight, I simply don’t care, so don’t waste my time and your time complaining about it. After all, every second you waste bitching at me, is a second you could spend crying in the bathroom and  eating French fries.)
The problem with that inclusive thinking is that it makes everything acceptable when it shouldn‘t be.
In my college English class we were assigned the play Hamlet to read at home and discuss in class. In the end, we ended up explicating nearly the entire play because it was virtually unanimous that Shakespeare was ‘too hard’ to understand, and his vocabulary too obscure. The fact is, college is supposed to be hard. Assignments are meant to be challenging. But when the professor observed that ¾ of the class were not able to discuss the play, the conclusion he drew was that we needed to lower the standards and devote two weeks of class time to going over the play and receiving a line by line explanation of what Shakespeare meant.
I'd like to propose an alternate conclusion- maybe the people who can’t understand college level reading should just not be in a college literature class to begin with.
In the push to get everyone into college the fact that not everyone belongs there was overlooked. But rather than say “you’re too stupid to go to college” or simply allowing these people to fail, we devote two weeks to combing through Shakespeare so that the morons in the cheap seats understand that Hamlet died at the end.
Failure in school is a Darwinian mechanism of ensuring that only people who are marginally capable of understanding abstract concepts, performing basic math functions, and showing up at an appointed time occupy future positions in which those skills will feature prominently. 
The downside is failing anatomy may mean you won’t become a doctor- but on the plus side, it means you won’t become a doctor.
Allowing people to succeed when they shouldn’t destroys the only real method of ensuring competency.
One teacher summed this philosophy up when she told our class she wouldn’t allow anyone to fail- because that wouldn’t mean they had failed the class, it would mean she had failed them.
(Isn’t that precious?)
Unfortunately, life is not an after school special. People can (and should) fail because they’re lazy, or undisciplined, or just plain dumb- and letting them succeed is not a cure for those flaws.
(In fact, dumb really can’t be cured at all)
It doesn’t stop there. My daughter has attended birthday parties with games where no one wins and everybody gets participation ribbons. Soccer games where no one keeps score and everybody gets an MVP awards. Classes that banish use of the word ‘can’t’ in some strange endeavor to part with reality by implying that anyone can do anything. Plus size beauty pageants (hey those really have a HUGE impact on the 4 people who watch them!).  And classes where you grade yourself! Add to this, the fact that it’s naughty of us to tell people who think Jesus lives in their toast that they’re delusional, or to tell people who really believe that the ghost hunters are chasing disembodied entities through the halls of condemned building that they’re naive.
In a baffling backwards turn of events, we are responding to a world that is becoming more competitive by becoming less capable of competing in any meaningful way.
(Aha! It’s adapting- only the other way! Leave it to America to innovate an old concept...)
The good news is, by the time our country becomes obsolete, no one will know what the word obsolete means, which means no one’s self esteem will be hurt.
(And isn’t that a victory in and of itself? [No!])
If no one’s self esteem is hurt, then no one will need to apologize! Like my Mom always said… societal collapse means never having to say you’re sorry.  Merry Christmas everyone!

The Ghost of Dummies Present- This Is A Blog Entry, Dammit!

My Mom, empress of the well-meaning, forwarded email, sent me a lovely peach of an chain letter that was innocuously titled ‘Christmas Tree’.  I opened it, and realized the prologue was very informative- it declared in bold letters This is a Christmas Tree.

(You can go right ahead and file that in the “No shit Sherlock” category of your mind).

Emboldened by new found knowledge of Xmas Trees, I read on. Beneath that sentence it showed a picture of yet another tree, and beneath it the writing told me that this as well was a Christmas Tree.

My mind groped blindly to try to comprehend the enormity of that fact. How could the first tree be a Christmas tree, if the second one was a Christmas tree too?! Not even a Christmas Tree can be in two pictures at once (or is that places?). I was so confused, yet as I read, the cryptic meaning became apparent.
There were numerous Christmas trees, an entire army, in fact and apparently everyone had taken photographs of them- but then there was a twist in the plot. I came to a tree, and instead of telling me what it was- IT PRECEDED TO TELL ME WHAT IT WASN’T (Genius!)
They were not Holiday Trees, Hanukkah Bushes, or Allah Plants.
(Yeah, because all those things are silly...and they forgot Kwanza)

 I reeled from the deception. Because who wants to sequentially toyed with near the holidays ? (Who?!)  My confusion sent me scurrying to the internet to look for more information (and video montages of fat people falling down the stairs).
But then I found a conflicting set of information. One group of people said that it doesn’t matter how you celebrate the holidays, or what name you call your celebration. This group of people told me that in spite of the fact that the religions were very different and unique, they were really EXACTLY the same- like the Christmas trees!
(So someone tell the extremist Muslims they misunderstood their religion- even when what we believe is very different, that doesn't have to mean that it isn't completely the same.)
They're the same because- all the religions teach LOVE (isn't that absolutely precious?)- which causes one to wonder why the authors of the Bible needed  181,253 words for that.
(That would make it one of the most obscenely verbose Valentine’s cards ever!)
The point of this is: In the spirit of complete ridiculousness, I have decided to call Christmas whatever the hell I want and I encourage you to do the same. 
Allow me to recommend Allahanukwanzitheisticmas.
God sent his only son, Santa Claus, to Earth riding on Comet where he settled in the North Pole. Every Dec. 21st he flies around the world with his reindeer and fills childrens' stockings with virgins... and candy. Then we sacrifice the reindeer to make Chinese food.
The end. If my idea catches, and I have absolutely no faith that it will, I will never have to receive another chain letter email again... or at least until Easter.

The Ghost of Dummies Past- The Fallacy of Skepticism

          Let me get this out of the way first- there’s no such thing as a “skeptic community”, so stop using the term.  What constitutes a skeptic? And skeptical in who’s estimation? The people who identify wit the delusion of a skeptical community seem to forget that everybody is skeptical about something, and even the most skeptical person can’t be skeptical about everything. So how skeptical do you need to be to call yourself a member of the “skeptic community”? And more importantly, what do you have to be skeptical about? It’s important to remember that there is a flipside to every argument- ghost hunters are skeptical about scientific explanations of their spooky phenomenon. Conspiracy theorists are skeptical about government undertakings. Creationists are skeptical about evolution- that doesn’t mean they’d blend well at the next Skeptic Society mixer.
(I’ve had this argument before and the counterargument is that ‘skeptic’ as used by the people who consider themselves members of the ‘skeptic community’ may be taken to mean ‘critical thinker’. Which begs the question “why not simply call yourself a “critical thinking community?”)
          It would be great if all the skeptics in the skeptic community were critical thinkers, but apparently there are major caveats about what skeptics are skeptical about. Skeptics can be skeptical about ghosts but not quarks. They can be skeptical of new aged medicine, but not anthropogenic global warming.
(I happen to believe in quarks, not ghosts, and AGW, not New Age Medicine, but that’s beside the point.)
          My point is that few of these “skeptics” can articulate why they believe in the things they do. Viewing the comments on the entry called “The Climategate Fiasco”  there seems to be a general agreement that these “skeptics” believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, but very little indication as to why. Many people freely admit that they “don’t understand the data”, yet nonetheless they uncritically defend the author of the post and the scientists whose emails were published.
          If you don’t understand the data how can you possibly know whether or not you agree with it?
This comment from a reader called Kostas sums it up great when he says (capitalization and spacing errors theirs) - “That said i believe AGW is a reality just because credible people whose judgment i trust (that would be you) seem to think so.Not to mention that if the right opposes it its probably true (thats being said only half jokingly)”
(Wow… well that just  answers all my questions! I just need to figure out who’s credible and believe what they tell me! And here I was doing all this thinking for nothing! )
          The phenomenon extends well beyond a single post. For every post there seems to be general accolades and agreement for the poster, but only vague hints as to why the audience agrees. In most cases it amounts to a simple restatement of what the poster just said.
          Another great example of this is the recent post “Young Earth Creationism = Darwinism?”. The author was essentially discussing the macroevolution/microevolution debate (if you don’t know what that is then google it)- but everyone who read it and commented seemed to be completely unaware that these arguments were old hat.
          I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to applaud science, even if you lack the capacity to understand it, but if you’re applauding something you don’t understand and calling yourself a  “skeptic” while you do then I’d have to say you’re deluding yourself.
          Believing in something because someone else told you it’s true is not skeptical. They have a word for that, it’s called faith. Many of the skeptic’s have faith that what the other skeptics are telling them, but they don’t know and have no ability to find out.
(This is, ironically the very same attitude that religious supporters are frequently chastised for- them being members of the “non-skeptical community” in the eyes of the skeptic camp.)
          It’s more than that though. A necessary component for critical thinking is to separate a claim from what evidence can be demonstrated and proven to be real. While it doesn’t necessarily have to be scientific proof, a critical thinker should dissemble an idea and see if it makes sense in context. Ideas that don’t, are left on the cutting room floor.
          But I am skeptical about how well they keep to this ideology.
          Daniel Loxton’s Twitter is an excellent source for tidbits:
“Skeptics don't like being together, vilified, called names and dismissed- so (this ain’t rocket science) we shouldn’t do that either.”
You know what else isn’t rocket science? Realizing that, in spite of the fact that Loxton just pointed out that Skeptics don’t like to be lumped together, her lumped them together by calling them skeptics and ascribing a set of preferences.
That isn’t really important- the real problem is that ignores one crucial fact- almost no one likes being called names or vilified. But it also assumes that there are no valid names to be called and no one who deserves to vilified.
He explains that later though:
“It’s off-putting to hear your cherished beliefs mocked, of course, but more than that:  most pseudoscientific beliefs are wrong- NOT stupid.”
While being wrong doesn’t always mean being stupid (to err is human), but sometimes it does. If pseudoscientific aren’t stupid then what is stupid?
Nothing? If ’stupid’, as a word, described nothing, then it wouldn’t be in common use- but it. So surely something must be stupid.
Moreover, stupid is in the eye of the beholder.  Deciding whether something is or isn’t stupid is not a decree handed down from on high- it’s an individual value judgment.
Then there is a whole list of things that skeptics should do or explanations about what skepticism is about- never fully acknowledging that he is only describing what skepticism is for him, and that there are no experts on what a “skeptic” does or doesn’t believe.
Finally, there are statements that tell us skeptics shouldn’t use slang or pejoratives to describe opposing forces, though the exact reason why is not clear. The statement implies that no insults are ever true (if they were then why would we abstain from using them?). No one is ever stupid (even if they are), or obtuse (even when they’re obtuse), or dim-witted, or insipid… even when they are.
It seems like a blatant and deliberate effort to overrule reality in order to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings.
Loxton even mentions how Shermer was dubbed an “accomodationist” and Loxton calls it “probably the lamest thing ever to happen to atheist activism” … since the invention of the term atheist activism, that is. There seems to be an arbitrary standard for what types of euphemisms are permissible.
By all means, look for yourself.
          In fairness, Loxton is not the only one guilty of doing this. It is becoming an increasingly popular attitude espoused within the “community”. and it only calls into question the assertion that skeptics care about finding the truth. 
          I made this entry The Ghost of Dummies past for a reason- we’ve all heard this before. There is another kind of social group that tends to believe what it’s leader say uncritically, make broad moral prescriptions about what it’s members should and should not do, and then makes blanket value judgments based on absolutely nothing- it’s called religion.

1st Place- The 2012 Turkey of Doom

I had to pick one single idea that qualified as the dumbest funking thing I’ve heard recently, and I knew immediately what to pick. It is an idea so monumental in it’s inanity that it transcended simple stupidity- it’s Super Stupid, and it’s 2012!
Anyone who knows me knows how much I hate the brigade of 2012 Doomsayers. The sheer ubiquity of 2012-Mayan-Doomsday-Apocalypse pisses me off. I can’t swing a moron without hitting another moron who’s talking on his iphone about 2012.
I do want to say one thing. I got several emails telling me how mean I am. They criticized me , essentially saying that while I’m free to express my disbelief in 2012 prophecy, it isn’t necessary for me to call believers morons. Or to refer to the morons ideas as being ‘stupid’. They felt that I could express my ideas on the subject without meanness…
Where’s the fun in that?
In all seriousness, where do we draw the line? Aren’t some ideas simply so stupid that there’s no other term to describe them? At some point, we have to decide that some notions are not worth entertaining and some ideas just don’t deserve serious consideration.
Their beliefs are not more deserving than alien abductees or big foot watchers (in fact, they feature a lot of similar components). No one would seriously demand that the lunatic fringe be treated as serious people, so why is it when a fringe idea takes root in the common imagination I am asked to treat it gingerly?
A line has to be drawn somewhere, and at some point nonsense has to be called what it is. What happens when we fail to draw a line demarcating what is and is not ridiculous is… well… what happens is the 2012 phenomenon.
I’ve already discussed how you don’t need to be an astrophysicist to understand that the events that will allegedly take place on Dec. 21st, 2012 are implausible (and that’s my nice word for it). All you need to do is a spin a ball and watch how it behaves. The ball will spin, wobbling on it’s axis, and as it slows down it will start to tip over and go ‘funny’. The earth just doesn’t slow down enough to flip over and go ‘funny’, so that scenario isn’t viable.
Also take note of the fact that the spinning ball doesn’t start spinning backwards for no reason. In order to spin the ball ‘backwards’ the ball would have to stop and then would need to be spun again, only this time going the other way. DO TRY THIS AT HOME KIDS. Try it again and again and again. The ball will behave the same when placed in the same conditions and subjected to the same application of force.
There is no event anticipated that will change the basic way our ball (the planet) behaves.
Which brings me to the final Doomsday scenario I hear again and again. We will be hit by another planet in 2012. The Mayans, first class astronomers, predicted it.
Yeah, tell me another one. There is no way that the Mayans knew we would get hit by a planet in 2012, and I don’t care how impressive their knowledge of the stars may have been- and here’s why.
Because we haven’t seen this planet yet. 2012 believers can go on and on about the Mayan’s advanced knowledge of astronomy, but when it comes down to it, the Mayans had no way to perceive a planet a trillion light years away. If they “saw” this planet it would mean that somehow their astronomical equipment rivaled NASA and it didn’t.
In order to believe that the Mayans foresaw a planet crashing into Earth, you’d have to believe that the Mayans were not only great astronomers, but that they were actually psychic. And they weren’t. Neither am I. Neither are you. And neither are the people who are selling you books about surviving the Apocalypse.
(For those of you who are afraid that the world will end in 2012, who’s really insulting your intelligence? The people who take your money and sell you fantasies, or me who thinks you’re smart enough to know better?)
I think America may be uniquely vulnerable to ideas like these. Our country was founded by Puritans and in order to be a Puritan you have to be willing to accept ideas that have no basis in fact. It’s a requirement for any religious belief. Faith, by definition, is believing in something that has no logical proof.
Though America has eschewed its puritanical heritage the tendency to believe in ideas that defy logical remains.
Well, that’s all folks. I’ve said enough about 2012 for now. I will see you again in December… provided of course that the world doesn’t flip inside out first.

2nd Place- Bill Maher *Hearts* Woo

The problem is that I like Bill Maher and I think that (most of the time) he’s hilarious. That said, his recent comments have struck some, myself among them, as more than a little kooky.
I am specifically referring to his rather bizarre blog post in response to his response to Michael Shermer’s open letter (HuffPo open letter).
The post starts of congenial enough- “While America is still in the grips of swine flu mania, let me use this opportunity to clear up a few things about my beliefs concerning the flu shot, vaccines, and health in general.” Bill Maher's Blog Response

(Great Bill. We’d love nothing better.)

He then goes on to say that many people are expressing private “skepticism” regarding vaccines and that he feels responsible for representing these peoples views.

(Privately? Isn’t that convenient? I mean about how no one can disapprove Maher claims because no ethical person would dare reveal the name of private supporter.)

Then he informs us of how put upon he is and attempts some sort of wacky conciliatory argument “But I don't want the job. I agree with my critics who say there are far more qualified people than me -- its just that mainstream media rarely interviews doctors and scientists who present an alternative point of view.”

One might be inclined to say “Don’t take the job then Bill.”

No one drug Maher from his home and tortured him until he admitted his unconventional views on vaccinations. He had ample opportunity to simply shut his mouth. Yet he didn’t. The moment he decided to open his mouth and exercise his free speech he became culpable for what he said. Hence, it shouldn’t be a big surprise that he got the job. After all, he applied for it when he expressed his views on national television. Presenting himself as a martyr in order to elicit sympathy from his critics should be beneath him. Ah, but there more. Maher tells us there’s a movement to silence those who would object to the horrid tyranny of vaccines.

For one moment Maher sounds exactly like the senseless individuals he routinely skewers. There’s a movement, though the only people who seem to see this movement are Maher and his get. Why would that be? Well, a movement that’s hidden from everyone else sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy, doesn’t it?

And once again Maher plays the sympathy card. Here he is, just a humble comedian, who is out there fighting those who would silence people who are asking vital questions concerning OUR health! Those bastards! How dare you immunize me!

(He’s Super Maher, mild mannered comedian by day- but by night he battles his archenemy The Man to save us all from HEALTH CARE! It’s a bird… it’s a plane…it‘s a jackass!)
In case that fails to impress you Maher tries ad populum to woo us: “The British Medical Journal from August 25 says half the doctors and medical workers in the U.K. are not taking the flu shot -- are they all crazy too? Sixty-five percent of French people don't want it. Maybe its not as simple as the medical establishment wants to paint it.”

I’m not going to bother trying to deflate the statistics- instead I’m going to point out the contradiction in using them. Maher concludes his sentence with saying “Maybe its not as simple as the medical establishment wants to paint it.” Which medical establishment? In the sentence before, Maher asked “half the doctors and medical workers in the U.K. are not taking the flu shot -- are they all crazy too?” Why is the medical establishment in the U.S, simplifying the issue, but the UK medical professionals are beyond scrutiny? If one set of doctors and specialists are too dense to comprehend the complexity issue, how can we trust another set of doctors just because they happen to be across the pond?

And what do the French have to do with anything? Being French doesn’t equate being reasonable.

The Biggest Turkey- 3rd Place

3rd Place- Organophiles and Foodaphobes Boy oh boy I am sick of hearing the following lamentations: Our food is killing us with chemicals. There’s a conspiracy to put addictive additives in our snack cakes. We’re being force fed sugar, or worse, high fructose corn syrup. It’s no small irony that these complaints tend to come from people 50lbs overweight who are shoveling Little Debbies into their pie holes so quickly they nearly choke.

The Chemical Fallacy- The bottom line is all foods contain chemicals. There are no exceptions to that rule, but fear not. The prevalent idea is that chemicals are bad (most of these people conjure up bizarre images of scientists in lab coats hunkered over glowing ooze) and indicative of ‘tampering’ with the food supply. They claim that food companies add these naughty chemical to their food to: a) give them cancer because they’re in cahoots with Big Pharma and the Government b) make their consumers addicted to their product, a process that is facilitated by the Government c) because the makers of food products are too dimwitted to comprehend what they are putting in their products, yet a high school dropout with an eco-freak book or a weird hippy with an organic garden can do so competently.
Idiots cite proof like this bit of stupid: “margarine and plastic are only one molecule away from each other.”
I can only guess this is an attempt to make a paranoid fantasy sound legitimate by tossing in a word like molecule. Would you like a glass H2O2- of course you wouldn’t because that’s hydrogen peroxide. Simply by removing a single oxygen atom we produce water (H20)- a necessity of life. Similar chemical structures do not imply that two substances will have remotely the same effect in the human body.
There are, after all, only 118 things on the planet that anything can be made from (consult the periodic table of elements) and it’s only reasonable to assume that there will be a little overlap.

The Cancer Fallacy- Secondly, in spite of what any one doctor or single study says, the overall picture is a trend towards living longer. If preservatives in food were that big of a deal we would have seen a sharp drop in lifespan. The most convincing evidence cited to support this argument is a rise in cancer rates. At first it seems to indicate that we are getting ‘sicker’ in some numerically impossible way since we’re living longer and the population keeps increasing. But the rise of cancer rates is a deceptive statistic.
Most cancers don’t begin until much later in life. According to the American Cancer Society, the greatest likelihood for developing cancer is in the age group of 70 and older (according to their statistics 37.74% of men will develop cancer and 26.17% of women in that age group). That means the probability of developing this illness more that doubles between the 60-69 age group ( male probability is 15.71 and female is 10.23) and the 70+ group.
Our cancer rates have increased because the percentage of our population who live long enough to develop the disease has increased. To put that into context, the average life expectancy for a US citizen didn’t break 70 (the time when most cancers begin) until 1970, when the average life expectancy was 70.8. (http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html)
Another problem with cancer statistics is that diagnosis of cancer has become much more accurate. It’s likely that in eras past, cancer was simply misdiagnosed and treated as a different illness. Needless to say, most of these unfortunate suffers died- making it impossible for them to pass on their genetic material. With better treatment, survival rates have increased dramatically , and with those the likelihood that survivors will pass on their genetic legacy has increased. Since cancer has a strong genetic component, it’s difficult to imagine that passing on ones’ genes would have no impact on the health of the subsequent generations.