Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Spreading the Word to the masses

Flying Spaghetti Monster Evangelizing - with pictures!

Basically, there's a corner in Springfield, MO, where a small number of Xtian nutjobs hang out holding ridiculous signs like "Homosexuality is an Abomination". The Pastafarians decided to see if they could get more converts than the nutjobs. Not surprisingly, they succeeded, as documented in the photos.

My favorite quote:
It's important to have females. It attracts the attention of passers-by and pisses off the uptight people holding the signs across the street.
This said after several women joined their group. :)

If I had a nicer looking car, I'd consider getting a flying spaghetti monster emblem for it. Maybe a t-shirt would be better for now, though...

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

The Propaganda Machine in action

This just cheeses me off:
Hurricane experts say the Atlantic has swung back into a period of heightened storm activity that could last another 20 years. Climatologists also fear global warming could be making the storms more intense.
Does anyone other than me notice the bias inherent in these two statements?

Over the past several months, I have seen and read innumerable stories in the news about how global warming is expected to increase the number of intense hurricanes per season. It seems to be a fairly accepted theory, in spite of the fact that, other than during the present year*, these more intense hurricane seasons haven't happened yet. I have also noticed one or two mentions of the competing theory, which is that the high number of storms this year is simply a normal part of long-term statistical variation--look at any random distribution, and there will be sections that are noticeably higher than others. The 20-year part is new. I haven't seen that before today.

There are two possibilities with respect to these competing theories.

The first is that the climatologists' theory has an edge, which arises from the fact that it's a predicted consequence of another well-established theory, namely global warming. Global warming predicts a likelihood of increased hurricane intensity per season, and a prediction is more definite than simply saying, "Random statistical variations will be higher for the next 20 years." The problem with random statistical variations is that you never really know what they are going to do. They cannot be predicted, not ever. Attributing this year's hurricane season to statistical variation and nothing else is essentially like saying, "We don't know why there are so many hurricanes this year." This, by itself, is perfectly fine. However, with the addition of a 20-year prediction, you end up with, "We don't know why there are so many hurricanes this year, and, based on this lack of knowledge, we predict that this will continue for the next 20 years." Ridiculous. Theories like global warming, on the other hand, are all about prediction. Prediction is used to test the theory, and once the theory begins to be generally accepted (as global warming has, by all but a few think-tank crackpots), it can be used to make other predictions--which will in turn be used to re-test and refine the theory.

The second is that both have equal merit, since we don't actually know what's going to happen. I think the arguments in favor of the first possibility are much more compelling, however.

Either way, the climatologists' theory is being poo-pooed and the "20-year random variation" theory is being touted as authoritative, when in fact the opposite is true or they are of equal merit. It is clear that the truth is being toyed with.

It's easy to see how this is being done. First, note the use of the term "hurricane experts," which conveys a sense of authority and surety. Also, the use of the word "say," which implies definiteness--definiteness which is entirely unwarranted, due to the unpredictability of random statistical variations. The statement also contains no information whatsoever about what these "experts" are basing their prediction on. Those who are familiar with this debate will assume that they are talking about the normal statistical variations of the weather, but it doesn't go so far as to actually say this. Is this simply for the sake of brevity, or are they leaving this information out deliberately?

Compare this to "Climatologists also fear." Note how climatologists are not labeled as "experts." The word "fear" is also problematic. While it is accurate in the sense that it doesn't convey an inappropriate level of definiteness, it is problematic due to the fact that, in this context, it characterizes the climatologists' theory as being inferior to the other, simply by not giving it that same level of definiteness. (This is doubly ironic because the climatologists' theory is, in fact, more definite than the other.) "Fear" is also problematic due to being pejorative and non-neutral. It carries a sense of irrationality, cowardice, and most importantly, lack of authority.

So, when one view is portrayed as being definite and expert, while the other is portrayed as being uncertain, irrational and cowardly, when in fact the two theories are probably of opposite merit from what is being portrayed, can there be any doubt that the authors of the article are trying to tell you what to think? And why would they do that, anyway? It's difficult to avoid noticing that the viewpoint they are softpedaling is related to global warming--a theory greatly loathed by the people who control most of the money in this world. And most of the media.

What especially cheeses me off about this is that it's coming from Reuters--a news agency that, for the most part, I am inclined to trust. I guess this is a good object lesson: read the news with a critical eye. Always. It's a pain in the ass, but if I'm going to be lied to, I would at least like to be aware of it.

-------

*2005 is now a record year in at least four different respects: tied for total number of storms in one season (and likely to exceed that number), tied for total number of hurricanes in one season, highest number of category 5 storms in one season, and first ever tropical cyclone to make landfall in Spain.

Friday, October 14, 2005

Bird flu: please remain calm. Panicking will only make things worse.

The number of articles on Google News pertaining to the Asian Bird Flu has suddenly shot up to over 1700--much higher than the 300 or 400 in recent days. A sampling of the headlines indicates enough inconsistency and disagreement to suggest a panic is beginning. Needless to say, panicking over the potential spread of a potentially deadly disease could very well lead to some serious problems, particularly if it turns out to be a false alarm this time, but the real deal next time.

Examples, from this Google News Search:
Turkey tests 9 for bird flu as experts meet
Reuters.uk, UK - 59 minutes ago
By Gareth Jones. ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkish medical staff on Friday tested nine people for possible bird flu a day after European ...

Asia losing battle against bird flu
Newindpress, India - 2 hours ago
MANILA: Asia is failing to contain the deadly bird flu virus and must be supported by wealthy countries to head off a devastating global pandemic, the World ...

Turkish officials rule out bird flu
Scotsman, United Kingdom - 2 hours ago
Turkish officials carried out medical tests on nine people living in a neighbourhood where 40 pigeons reportedly died, but released the nine from medical ...

Germans snapping up Tamiflu in bird flu panic
Expatica, Netherlands - 2 hours ago
BRUSSELS - The demand for the anti-influenza drug Tamiflu has boomed in Germany as a result of widespread concern over bird flu, pharmacies report. ...

WHO calls for strengthened surveillance as bird flu spreads
Xinhua, China - 3 hours ago
GENEVA, Oct. 14 (Xinhuanet) -- The spread of bird flu virus to poultry in new areas increases the opportunities of further human ...

Bird flu virus found in second Romanian village
Forbes - 3 hours ago
BUCHAREST (AFX) - Bird flu has been detected in a second Romanian village near to where a first outbreak was reported, the agriculture ministry said Friday ...

EU to aid Romania, Turkey on bird flu
Bangkok Post, Thailand - 3 hours ago
Brussels (dpa) - European Union governments remained on full alert on Friday following the discovery of bird flu in neighbouring Turkey and Romania. ...

Bird flu sparks EU crisis meeting
The Age (subscription), Australia - 3 hours ago
By James Button. EUROPEAN Union health officials were holding an emergency meeting yesterday to discuss measures to stop the spread of bird flu. ...

Romanian bird flu samples delayed
Scotsman, United Kingdom - 3 hours ago
Samples of Romanian bird flu en route to Britain to be tested for a deadly strain of the virus were held up in Romania and still have not arrived in the UK ...

EU acts as bird flu reaches Europe
Sydney Morning Herald (subscription), Australia - 4 hours ago
By James Button, Herald Correspondent in Copenhagen and agencies. Grim task … a Romanian vet collects chickens from a farm near ...

Don't panic over bird flu, UN says
Guardian Unlimited, UK - 4 hours ago
Vets collect birds after Romanian authorities called for all farm birds in one area to be kept indoors. Photograph: Daniel Mihailescu/AFP/Getty. ...

WHO: Bird flu in Europe is "call to arms"
Reuters.uk, UK - 5 hours ago
By Stephanie Nebehay. GENEVA (Reuters) - The spread of the deadly bird flu virus to poultry in areas on the fringes of Europe has ...

Experts May Endorse Bird Flu Steps
CBS News - 5 hours ago
(CBS/AP) European Union veterinary experts were expected to endorse new measures Friday aimed at preventing the deadly bird flu virus strain H5N1 from ...
Note the way some of the reports seem to conflict--have the results in Turkey and Romania been confirmed or not? Closer research of the stories would probably shed some light on the matter, but are American TV News wonks going to pay that close attention, or are they going to rush right in to stay ahead of the competition, on what appears to be a very quickly developing story, thereby inciting undue alarm in the public? Some calmness and cold rationality are very desperately needed on this issue.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Let us demonstrate for peace...but only if it is convenient; Some thoughts on the efficacy of civil disobedience

I thought this was pretty funny.

Apparently, the mother of the first female soldier from Wisconsin killed in the Iraq war declined to participate in an upcoming peace rally, scheduled for this Friday in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, when she learned that the rally will likely involve "civil disobedience." The civil disobedience in question would involve a public street march without a permit.
[She] said she couldn’t endorse any peace-promoting event that may involve police arrests or conflict.

"I prefer Gandhi’s or Mother Theresa’s philosophy about peace," she said. "It’s about love and cooperation, not about conflict."
Gandhi? Okay. When I Asked Jeeves "Did Gandhi ever go to jail?" here's what it gave me:
Gandhi was arrested many times by the British for his activities in South Africa and India. He believed it was honorable to go to jail for a just cause. Altogether he spent seven years in prison for his political activities.
That page also states:
[Gandhi] developed a method of action based upon the principles of courage, nonviolence and truth called Satyagraha.... Satyagraha promoted nonviolence and civil disobedience as the most appropriate methods for obtaining political and social goals.
The way peaceful, civilly disobedient protests work is that everyone is there protesting peacefully, then the cops come in and start busting people. It's the police who are the source of the conflict, not the protestors. Of course, the police always have the option of not busting people, but that would involve voluntarily not enforcing the law, which is typically a bit of a stretch for them. In fact, if they choose to take that course of action, they themselves would become part of the civil disobedience.

A more valid point to make might have been to question whether civil disobedience actually accomplishes anything anymore. I often think that it does not--after all, it seems to me the primary reason Gandhi succeeded is that he made the British look like a bunch of barbarian thugs. This worked because the British went through great pains to proclaim themselves as the most civilized culture in the world, and they were embarrassed to be exposed like that. So there are some key elements here which are required for civil disobedience to work: 1) The authorities must respond excessively (merely arresting people is not generally considered excessive), 2) The authorities must actually care about their public image, and 3) The excessive response of the authorities must be publicized in a way that reflects negatively on them. I think the powers that be in the United States have pretty effectively disarmed numbers one and three--normally, the police do not respond excessively anymore, and the media rarely paints the acutal power structure in a negative light based on the results of a protest. Recall how the Seattle protests of several years ago were blamed on "anarchists". Whether or not the anarchists were real or not, or whether the violence there was started by the cops or not, this one little misdirection, along with a compliant media, was all it took to effectively diffuse the impact of the most significant protest to take place on American soil in recent decades.

[edited 10/12/05 to clarify that the female soldier killed was the first female soldier from Wisconsin killed in the Iraq war. Ooops.]