You'll damn well know it's the future, when...
Junkies are shooting up with syringes full of baby brains, so they can function enough to pull down that next score.
Read More...
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Kinder, Gentler, Atheists
Christopher Hitchens has described himself as an anti-theist. Richard Dawkins has ascribed to the label, at times, too. They are often described as "The New Atheists", those two along with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. "The New Atheists" are characterized by being "out", proud, and open about their atheism; which a lot of people on the religious front take to mean "aggressive", "indignant", etc.
Then, there're people like DJ Grothe- host of the Point of Inquiry podcast- Annie Laurie Gaylor, and Dan Barker. These are, what I consider to be the KG Atheists. Dan Barker introduces himself, on Freethought Radio on Air America, as "your friendly neighborhood atheist". The KGs are all about inclusiveness and "not raising to the bait", etc etc.
Then there are those who are somewhere between the polar opposites I'm making these groups out to be- including most of the people I just mentioned. This probably represents the largest group of atheists. (And here, by atheist, I mean anyone covered by terms such as Freethinker, etc; the big A word is one of my favorites).
The KG position is that by being aggressive, dismissive, confident/arrogant, and responding in kind to vitriol, we're only hurting our own position. It's an argument I dislike; but I can't find fault with it. They claim organizations such as The Rational Response Squad only serve to drive away some people who might otherwise join, or support, us.
But, I'm a kid of the digital revolution. We had watches that did trig, when I was growing up. Eat that, old people with your stupid sliding rulers...
I've dealt with trolls for longer than I've dealt with herp... er.. the POSSIBILITIES of STIs. :twisted:
Obviously, the best way to deal with those people is to ignore them, completely. But you know what that does? Nothing. It does nothing, so the troll gets bored, and the watchers go watch someone who WILL feed the trolls. You know what happens when you out troll the troll? The watchers help you beat the pitiful creature into the cyber-dirt, and rub it's crushed psyche with salt so that confidence may never spring forth from such potent manure, ever again. You gain allies, who can then be coddled, appeased, treated kindly, and won over.
The KGs have their place. They will always be needed, because "midwestern, Lutheran, housewives" will always be scared of the big mean satanic atheists; and dulcet tones may be the only way of getting them to put down their monster burning torches. But KGs often condescend to the Aggressives.
Worse, KGs, often express the exact same sentiments, feelings, and ideas as the Aggressives. Yet, it comes off- to me- as passive aggressive. Why is that bad? First, if you're asking you'll never truly get it. Second, it's bad because it stinks of false confidence.
Humans are social animals. We're wired to instinctively trust confident, self-assured, people- regardless of how stupid/idiotic/intelligent they may be. Who was the smartest kid in your High School? And who was the MOST popular? Chances are, they weren't the same kid. (Yeah, yeah, beauty has something to do with it, too; but you can't fake beauty as easily as confidence). Passive aggression has a stigma of being sleazy, underhanded, and... passive aggressive. It connotates negatively.
There's, seemingly obviously, always a place for the KGs; but why not accept the Aggressives, too? Those of us who enjoy a good screaming match of sarcastic one-ups-man-ship, insult round-up, or pin the negative stigma on the loser-faced-loser-boy have our uses. When slick sleazy conmen like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Kent Hovind, etc etc etc ad nauseum, get up and spout their lies- the same lies that they've spouted a million times before, despite having been shown the evidence each and every time- why not return fire with someone who will equally ignore logic and gladly participate in tit-for-tat?
Why is it bad to ever offend, instead of the tried and true strategy to defend?
Let's face it, the moderates will attract some people. The KGs will attract some people. But the Aggressives could help to make it harder to say provably false, demeaning, bs- and less of that would attract some people. As would a projection of confidence and self-assurance.
This is very much tl;dr territory, so I'll stop there, for now. This is something I've been thinking about seriously for the last 6 months or so. I'm curious to hear the opinions of others "in the trenches", so to speak.
This is my first volley in a discussion I'm trying to start at the North Alabama Freethought Association's forums. I can maintain separate conversations- it'd be interesting to see how two different conversations develop, honestly- but anyone who would like to see it there will need to register for their forums.
Read More...
Then, there're people like DJ Grothe- host of the Point of Inquiry podcast- Annie Laurie Gaylor, and Dan Barker. These are, what I consider to be the KG Atheists. Dan Barker introduces himself, on Freethought Radio on Air America, as "your friendly neighborhood atheist". The KGs are all about inclusiveness and "not raising to the bait", etc etc.
Then there are those who are somewhere between the polar opposites I'm making these groups out to be- including most of the people I just mentioned. This probably represents the largest group of atheists. (And here, by atheist, I mean anyone covered by terms such as Freethinker, etc; the big A word is one of my favorites).
The KG position is that by being aggressive, dismissive, confident/arrogant, and responding in kind to vitriol, we're only hurting our own position. It's an argument I dislike; but I can't find fault with it. They claim organizations such as The Rational Response Squad only serve to drive away some people who might otherwise join, or support, us.
But, I'm a kid of the digital revolution. We had watches that did trig, when I was growing up. Eat that, old people with your stupid sliding rulers...
I've dealt with trolls for longer than I've dealt with herp... er.. the POSSIBILITIES of STIs. :twisted:
Obviously, the best way to deal with those people is to ignore them, completely. But you know what that does? Nothing. It does nothing, so the troll gets bored, and the watchers go watch someone who WILL feed the trolls. You know what happens when you out troll the troll? The watchers help you beat the pitiful creature into the cyber-dirt, and rub it's crushed psyche with salt so that confidence may never spring forth from such potent manure, ever again. You gain allies, who can then be coddled, appeased, treated kindly, and won over.
The KGs have their place. They will always be needed, because "midwestern, Lutheran, housewives" will always be scared of the big mean satanic atheists; and dulcet tones may be the only way of getting them to put down their monster burning torches. But KGs often condescend to the Aggressives.
Worse, KGs, often express the exact same sentiments, feelings, and ideas as the Aggressives. Yet, it comes off- to me- as passive aggressive. Why is that bad? First, if you're asking you'll never truly get it. Second, it's bad because it stinks of false confidence.
Humans are social animals. We're wired to instinctively trust confident, self-assured, people- regardless of how stupid/idiotic/intelligent they may be. Who was the smartest kid in your High School? And who was the MOST popular? Chances are, they weren't the same kid. (Yeah, yeah, beauty has something to do with it, too; but you can't fake beauty as easily as confidence). Passive aggression has a stigma of being sleazy, underhanded, and... passive aggressive. It connotates negatively.
There's, seemingly obviously, always a place for the KGs; but why not accept the Aggressives, too? Those of us who enjoy a good screaming match of sarcastic one-ups-man-ship, insult round-up, or pin the negative stigma on the loser-faced-loser-boy have our uses. When slick sleazy conmen like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Kent Hovind, etc etc etc ad nauseum, get up and spout their lies- the same lies that they've spouted a million times before, despite having been shown the evidence each and every time- why not return fire with someone who will equally ignore logic and gladly participate in tit-for-tat?
Why is it bad to ever offend, instead of the tried and true strategy to defend?
Let's face it, the moderates will attract some people. The KGs will attract some people. But the Aggressives could help to make it harder to say provably false, demeaning, bs- and less of that would attract some people. As would a projection of confidence and self-assurance.
This is very much tl;dr territory, so I'll stop there, for now. This is something I've been thinking about seriously for the last 6 months or so. I'm curious to hear the opinions of others "in the trenches", so to speak.
This is my first volley in a discussion I'm trying to start at the North Alabama Freethought Association's forums. I can maintain separate conversations- it'd be interesting to see how two different conversations develop, honestly- but anyone who would like to see it there will need to register for their forums.
Read More...
Anti-Vax Fakery Discovered
Phil Plait, over at Bad Astronomy is discussing the news from the UK based Sunday Times, that the original study finding a link between vaccinations and negative health effects in children was faked.
find the whole thing: here.
Read More...
If these allegations are true, then it means that Wakefield out-and-out lied in his original work. He has denied this, according to the Sunday Times, but won’t make further comments.
This may cause a firestorm in the antivax community, but there are two things I will guarantee: the first is that in the end antivaxxers will stick to their beliefs that vaccines cause health problems like autism, because this is not and never has been, for them, about the facts and evidence. It’s a belief system, and like most other belief systems, it is impenetrable to evidence. If you have any doubts, I suggest you read the comments to the post I made the other day about measles being on the rise in the UK. One commenter on that post is saying all manners of outrageous things, and ignores the evidence that I (and a pediatrician) have left in the comments to him.
find the whole thing: here.
Read More...
Friday, February 06, 2009
Bad Science fights bad "science"!
For those of you who haven't seen this over at Boing Boing, like I did:
Ben Goldacre wrote a critical column about DJ Jeni Barnett, who was recently heard spewing loads of anti-vaxx psuedoscience on her 3 hour live radio show. He included an excerpt- about 44 minutes- of the show, with the critique.
So, what happened, then? The radio station (LBC), and it's parent corp (Global Audio), threatened to sue M. Goldacre.
We have "fair use", over there: fair dealing. It amounts to the same thing. LBC and Global Audio maintain, apparently, that 44 minutes of a 180min broadcast is too much. Plus, as deep pocketed corporations- especially when compared to Mr Goldacre- they have the conception that they can bully and browbeat anyone who doesn't do what they like.
It would be understandable if he hadn't been making a point, letting their own DJ condemn herself, but the case is just that. He excerpted, roughly, a quarter of the overall broadcast in order to make comments. That would be like using ~7min from a 30 min TV show to illustrate some aspect of the show. To me, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
But I'm not a corporation that cares about nothing other than its bottom line.
Of course, in my paranoia infused/narrative driven brain, another possibility presents itself: The corporations know how legal action produces lots of media, and they're trying to drive people to buy the nearly $6 (US) show online.
In reality, I fear they think they're protecting themselves from being exposed as people who don't care how much they hurt other people. A lot of psuedoscience is just stupid: magnetic wrist bands to help your arthritis, for instance. Anti-vaxx has a body count.
Anti-vaxx has a body count.
Read More...
Ben Goldacre wrote a critical column about DJ Jeni Barnett, who was recently heard spewing loads of anti-vaxx psuedoscience on her 3 hour live radio show. He included an excerpt- about 44 minutes- of the show, with the critique.
So, what happened, then? The radio station (LBC), and it's parent corp (Global Audio), threatened to sue M. Goldacre.
We have "fair use", over there: fair dealing. It amounts to the same thing. LBC and Global Audio maintain, apparently, that 44 minutes of a 180min broadcast is too much. Plus, as deep pocketed corporations- especially when compared to Mr Goldacre- they have the conception that they can bully and browbeat anyone who doesn't do what they like.
It would be understandable if he hadn't been making a point, letting their own DJ condemn herself, but the case is just that. He excerpted, roughly, a quarter of the overall broadcast in order to make comments. That would be like using ~7min from a 30 min TV show to illustrate some aspect of the show. To me, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
But I'm not a corporation that cares about nothing other than its bottom line.
Of course, in my paranoia infused/narrative driven brain, another possibility presents itself: The corporations know how legal action produces lots of media, and they're trying to drive people to buy the nearly $6 (US) show online.
In reality, I fear they think they're protecting themselves from being exposed as people who don't care how much they hurt other people. A lot of psuedoscience is just stupid: magnetic wrist bands to help your arthritis, for instance. Anti-vaxx has a body count.
Anti-vaxx has a body count.
Read More...
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Thomas Sowell, a conservative columnist from the Hoover Institute, says the banks don't want the money the government is trying to give them; but that's not even remotely true. The Banks definitely WANT the money, why wouldn't they? What Banks don't want is regulations on how/what they can spend/use the money. He also says banks are loaning less today than they were before they received any money.
What does he know that we don't?
The short answer is: nothing.
First, let's look at the loan situation. The credit crunch- the limited availability and issuance of loans- is still ongoing, and worsening, despite every measure tried. Why? There are, as with so many economic problems, lots of reasons. One, companies are going bankrupt, so there are less companies trying to borrow money. Two, companies are going bankrupt, and reporting vastly smaller profits than at any time in recent memory (if they're not suffering losses); which means loaning money to businesses is riskier. The job of a banker is to minimize risk. With the lackluster profit reports we're seeing, expectations and markets down, and the recession due to last through spring (an optimistic opinion, in my view), it's risky to loan businesses money, at the moment. However, those businesses- like WalMart- who are doing well, aren't reporting a problem with getting loans.
Additionally, people with good credit aren't having a big problem with getting loans, either. Anecdotally, my sister just got a loan on a good condition used car at a very good interest rate. Her credit wasn't perfect- she had a repossession some years ago- but she had no outstanding debts, and a good job. But, many people are getting laid-off. Look at "Bloody Monday". Many many people are already out of a job, working reduced hours, etc etc. We've all seen the news and heard the stories. The facts on the ground aren't good for workers. Which means it's risky to give a loan. If the person has slightly bad credit, they're a huge risk- when viewed objectively as a potential soon-to-be-beneficiary of, recently extended, unemployment benefits.
The credit crunch is on because the recession is bad, and people are losing their jobs. That is partly due to the credit crunch. It's a feedback loop. Fortunately, the longer the recession goes on, and the credit crunch weeds out the insolvent, the less impact it will have. The problem is, it's not over, and the point of equilibrium will only be realized in hindsight. Which means loan officers won't be aware of it when it does, if it hasn't already, hit.
Secondly, business and banks are begging for tax cuts. Why? Because that's free- read: non-regulated- money. Cut their taxes and they get access to money they would have owed. It doesn't come with all the oversight, preferred stock option exchange, or any of the other, unfortunately meager, regulatory provisions of government "bailout" money. Of course they want that. If you asked a business person if they would rather have a bunch of money free and clear, or the same amount with a bunch of political bullshit, regulation, and rules attached... Which would you pick?
The money is the same, either way. Potentially, there's more money in the bailout, immediately. Tax cuts might be easier to make permanent, though, and that may have something to do with it. The point is that Thomas Sowell and the Republicans are spouting bullshit and demanding the Democrats stop spouting bullshit. There's no way of telling if the Democratic stimulus package will work, yet.
Finally, there is some indication that the Republican stimulus plans, i.e. more tax cuts, don't work. Huh? Look at the last few years. Bush loved his tax cuts, and look where we're at. I'm not saying that tax cuts put us in this situation, but I am saying they didn't help. The last round of tax cuts barely stimulated the economy during the third quarter. Most people kept the money and saved it, a strategy that proved to be very wise indeed.
Infrastructure is a good investment. It's possible that there are better investments; but I haven't seen any. I've seen some data that claims there are equally good investments; but there's a problem not being addressed with those few I've seen. Ignoring recent data on tax cuts, they do seem potentially capable of helping. But they don't help nearly as many people.
According to Maude Barlow, the top 200 corporations control the same amount of wealth as the bottom 2/3s of people. That's 4,290,000,000 people. Infrastructure, like internet access, roads, electrical grids, etc etc, has been shown to disproportionately help the poor, while tax cuts help the rich. How? If you pay 10% of 20,000 (the federal poverty level as of a couple years ago) you're not gonna get the same benefit of a 2% tax break as someone who pays 15% of a billion. But if it only takes you 15 minutes to get to work, instead of 30 minutes, it means less gas and gas money isn't as big a problem if you make $200,000/year.
[An Aside: I use the driving example because of I-565, that "Lake of Asphalt" some of you may have heard about on NPR about a week ago. My mother's commute was cut in half when it was completed. There are those who would say 15 minutes of time for Bill Gates is worth more than 15 minutes of {anyone else}'s time. That's a good argument; except that it ignores the real world situation of gas. In reality, $20 a week in extra gas doesn't mean much to Bill Gates; but it can mean a very very modest retirement savings for someone who was otherwise living paycheck to paycheck. Again, in reality, it probably wouldn't get used solely for savings; but the point remains.]
Keynesian Economics is the real point that is being argued. It's got it's problems. However, so does every other system. The fact of the matter is that Keynesian economic strategies, or maybe just the ones I've heard, seem to benefit the poor more than the rich. In fact, they don't seem like they really help the rich. That was- in a way- Keynes's point, from what I understand. Should the government be in the business of "redistributing the wealth"? No, but if money needs to be spent- tax cuts are expenditures, just like infrastructure- I think it should be spent to help the poor more than the rich. This is a biased viewpoint; but it's not one I'm likely to ever change, regardless of my personal financial situation.
There's a balance that can be reached between helping the poorest and not seriously injuring the richest. It's just hard to reach that point when people are willing to lie, or "misstate" the "facts", to advance their viewpoint. Legislating morality is a dangerous game, and one I'm very opposed to; which is why I don't think we should legislate against greed or self-interest. What I do think, is that we should have a democracy that supports the majority, and the vast majority of people are poor.
Read More...
What does he know that we don't?
The short answer is: nothing.
First, let's look at the loan situation. The credit crunch- the limited availability and issuance of loans- is still ongoing, and worsening, despite every measure tried. Why? There are, as with so many economic problems, lots of reasons. One, companies are going bankrupt, so there are less companies trying to borrow money. Two, companies are going bankrupt, and reporting vastly smaller profits than at any time in recent memory (if they're not suffering losses); which means loaning money to businesses is riskier. The job of a banker is to minimize risk. With the lackluster profit reports we're seeing, expectations and markets down, and the recession due to last through spring (an optimistic opinion, in my view), it's risky to loan businesses money, at the moment. However, those businesses- like WalMart- who are doing well, aren't reporting a problem with getting loans.
Additionally, people with good credit aren't having a big problem with getting loans, either. Anecdotally, my sister just got a loan on a good condition used car at a very good interest rate. Her credit wasn't perfect- she had a repossession some years ago- but she had no outstanding debts, and a good job. But, many people are getting laid-off. Look at "Bloody Monday". Many many people are already out of a job, working reduced hours, etc etc. We've all seen the news and heard the stories. The facts on the ground aren't good for workers. Which means it's risky to give a loan. If the person has slightly bad credit, they're a huge risk- when viewed objectively as a potential soon-to-be-beneficiary of, recently extended, unemployment benefits.
The credit crunch is on because the recession is bad, and people are losing their jobs. That is partly due to the credit crunch. It's a feedback loop. Fortunately, the longer the recession goes on, and the credit crunch weeds out the insolvent, the less impact it will have. The problem is, it's not over, and the point of equilibrium will only be realized in hindsight. Which means loan officers won't be aware of it when it does, if it hasn't already, hit.
Secondly, business and banks are begging for tax cuts. Why? Because that's free- read: non-regulated- money. Cut their taxes and they get access to money they would have owed. It doesn't come with all the oversight, preferred stock option exchange, or any of the other, unfortunately meager, regulatory provisions of government "bailout" money. Of course they want that. If you asked a business person if they would rather have a bunch of money free and clear, or the same amount with a bunch of political bullshit, regulation, and rules attached... Which would you pick?
The money is the same, either way. Potentially, there's more money in the bailout, immediately. Tax cuts might be easier to make permanent, though, and that may have something to do with it. The point is that Thomas Sowell and the Republicans are spouting bullshit and demanding the Democrats stop spouting bullshit. There's no way of telling if the Democratic stimulus package will work, yet.
Finally, there is some indication that the Republican stimulus plans, i.e. more tax cuts, don't work. Huh? Look at the last few years. Bush loved his tax cuts, and look where we're at. I'm not saying that tax cuts put us in this situation, but I am saying they didn't help. The last round of tax cuts barely stimulated the economy during the third quarter. Most people kept the money and saved it, a strategy that proved to be very wise indeed.
Infrastructure is a good investment. It's possible that there are better investments; but I haven't seen any. I've seen some data that claims there are equally good investments; but there's a problem not being addressed with those few I've seen. Ignoring recent data on tax cuts, they do seem potentially capable of helping. But they don't help nearly as many people.
According to Maude Barlow, the top 200 corporations control the same amount of wealth as the bottom 2/3s of people. That's 4,290,000,000 people. Infrastructure, like internet access, roads, electrical grids, etc etc, has been shown to disproportionately help the poor, while tax cuts help the rich. How? If you pay 10% of 20,000 (the federal poverty level as of a couple years ago) you're not gonna get the same benefit of a 2% tax break as someone who pays 15% of a billion. But if it only takes you 15 minutes to get to work, instead of 30 minutes, it means less gas and gas money isn't as big a problem if you make $200,000/year.
[An Aside: I use the driving example because of I-565, that "Lake of Asphalt" some of you may have heard about on NPR about a week ago. My mother's commute was cut in half when it was completed. There are those who would say 15 minutes of time for Bill Gates is worth more than 15 minutes of {anyone else}'s time. That's a good argument; except that it ignores the real world situation of gas. In reality, $20 a week in extra gas doesn't mean much to Bill Gates; but it can mean a very very modest retirement savings for someone who was otherwise living paycheck to paycheck. Again, in reality, it probably wouldn't get used solely for savings; but the point remains.]
Keynesian Economics is the real point that is being argued. It's got it's problems. However, so does every other system. The fact of the matter is that Keynesian economic strategies, or maybe just the ones I've heard, seem to benefit the poor more than the rich. In fact, they don't seem like they really help the rich. That was- in a way- Keynes's point, from what I understand. Should the government be in the business of "redistributing the wealth"? No, but if money needs to be spent- tax cuts are expenditures, just like infrastructure- I think it should be spent to help the poor more than the rich. This is a biased viewpoint; but it's not one I'm likely to ever change, regardless of my personal financial situation.
There's a balance that can be reached between helping the poorest and not seriously injuring the richest. It's just hard to reach that point when people are willing to lie, or "misstate" the "facts", to advance their viewpoint. Legislating morality is a dangerous game, and one I'm very opposed to; which is why I don't think we should legislate against greed or self-interest. What I do think, is that we should have a democracy that supports the majority, and the vast majority of people are poor.
Read More...
Sunday, February 01, 2009
What is "Pression", anyway?
According to Charlie Stross (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/01/depression_20.html) it is anecdotally likely that more people are depressed, right now. Which I mention because in the last week I've slept rather irregularly- including two days of 18 or more hours. Normally, this is a sign of sickness- but I haven't felt sick and I doubt I could get sick twice in that short span- or depression- but I haven't felt any more depressed than usual.
It occurs to me, there is a third option.
The last time I slept so much, I grew a lot. Maybe I have hit another growth spurt. This is highly doubtful, for any number of reasons, of course; but I wanted to warn you, anyway. I could be getting even bigger, which means, soon, there will be no more space for you on this puny marble. As a precaution, you should all install break-away cyanide teeth, in case you must commit suicide to give me the space I need to grow.
You've been warned.
Read More...
It occurs to me, there is a third option.
The last time I slept so much, I grew a lot. Maybe I have hit another growth spurt. This is highly doubtful, for any number of reasons, of course; but I wanted to warn you, anyway. I could be getting even bigger, which means, soon, there will be no more space for you on this puny marble. As a precaution, you should all install break-away cyanide teeth, in case you must commit suicide to give me the space I need to grow.
You've been warned.
Read More...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Or would you rather be a fish...
Wired.com has a new article up about the latest ina long trend of "leave the land, seek the sea" utopia projects. It's great, about 4 pages, and it will inspire you to laughter, if not thoughts of wonderful mischief.
One they didn't mention, but can be easily Googled, is New Utopia- a project of Lazarus Long (yes, after THAT LL; yes, we should do ALL of THAT, and more to him for usurping THAT name)...
In the vein of "Floating Island of Whatever-the-fuck-you-want", What would YOU do if you had an island nation of your own?
Read More...
One they didn't mention, but can be easily Googled, is New Utopia- a project of Lazarus Long (yes, after THAT LL; yes, we should do ALL of THAT, and more to him for usurping THAT name)...
In the vein of "Floating Island of Whatever-the-fuck-you-want", What would YOU do if you had an island nation of your own?
Read More...
OUTLAW
My version of "Down the Rabbit Hole" Day is a link blog. It continues, below:
Edit: Resized videos, added Link to Boing Boing
Read More...
Edit: Resized videos, added Link to Boing Boing
Read More...
Full of Shit? You're Not Alone.
I just finished watching the acclaimed Canadian documentary The Corporation. I have some problems with it.
A long-ish while ago, I was sent a link to the 9/11 Truther movie called "A Big Steaming Pile of Bullshit", or something similar. The movie made me so mad, inside of 15 minutes, that I made a HUGE rebuttal, minute by minute, and posted it online. I will probably never do that again, as it was time consuming, and- though I didn't know it at the time- much of that work had already been done (and done better).
Instead, I'll give a general overview of The Corporation, and my problems with it.
First off- for those who have not, or won't watch the movie- an overview. The Corporation lays out a picture that is, in a hyphenated word: anti-corporate. There are many notable names: Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, Naomi Klein, Ray Anderson, etc. There are many more notable corporations: IBM, Wal-Mart, Bechtel, Nike, Interface, GE, etc. The general consensus is: corporations are bad for people.
My take: maybe, but.
First off, let's start with a relatively limited sourcing of claims. There are many claims made in the movie, like all synthetic chemicals are bad for the environment, while only some are cited. The contracts between IBM and the Nazi government are shown, for instance; as are parts of the documents Jane Akre used to sue Fox News in her failed whistle-blower suit. In general, the film only shows a very few instances of corporate greed/malevolence/wrong-doing, and only in those few cases are there citations- if any are given, at all.
That's a minor point, as the few cases they show are all- generally- well documented. I bring it up because lack of documentation/citation is a warning sign. It means, usually, that: (a) the person has no proof whatever they're telling you wasn't a lie when it was told to them; or (b) they didn't figure you'd want proof so, despite their passionate position, they didn't bother actually researching it- and therefore have no idea that it's all conjecture and opinion, with little or no factual basis. There could be other reasons, but I'm too lazy to provide them- but have fun looking them up for yourself, consider it a lesson in how to do your own research when some asshole on teh intardwubz tells you something.
1) Not all synthetic chemicals are bad. Some of them are synthetic versions of chemicals that appear in nature. But, even if 99.999999999% of all synthetic chemicals are bad for people and the environment, there are those that are not. Seems like semantics, huh? It might be; but if you're gonna tell the truth, why exaggerate the claim? Especially when the truth is that some chemicals are only dangerous in large dosages.
2) At one point, while listing the sins of the Corporation, there is the caption: "Harm to animals: experimentation". To be highly pedantic: Fuck off. When is a chicken's life not equal to a humans? When killing that chicken can save the lives of thousands. When killing that chicken means prolonging the life of a family. Vegetarianism be damned. Sure, it may be morally ambiguous to test on animals in some cases, but not in others. Sure, we arbitrarily say: that animal is too cute to be tested on. But the claim is that animal experimentation isn't needed. That's an extraordinary claim, as animal testing has helped us develop much of modern medicine- including vaccines, insulin for diabetics, and better understanding of how our bodies work. So, prove it. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Who said that, and why are they wrong? (Hint: They're not).
3) In general, the film makes pretty damning cases against certain corporations, or certain bits and pieces of corporations, or their histories. Then they take those cases and say "That's how all corporations work!" Which is not a logically valid argument. In fact, all it means is "Hey, I don't like what they did here, or how those people did that there, so all Corporations are bad." Want a quick way to check that reasoning? Change the word "Corporations" to the plural form of your favorite minority. Seems stupid, huh? Making broad generalizations- even if it's about a group that is generally despised- is never a logically valid tactic. In fact, it's an emotional argument, which has nothing to do with logic.
4) Furthermore, there are lots of loaded words used throughout- words that connotate heavily emotional ideas. Like saying "Patriots" instead of the more ambiguous "soldiers". Or "freedom fighters". In addition, there are loaded pictures/symbols. Buckets of skulls, barrels of radioactive waste, scenes of what looks like billowing clouds of polluted smoke pouring from smoke stacks. No way of knowing if that's just water vapor- not that I'm saying it is; but if it was, how would anyone know? These are shock tactics. For those of you who hate Micheal Moore, he's interviewed and footage from his movies/shows is cut-in at various points. It's easy to admit that Moore is very big on shock.
5) When alternate, or opposition, arguments are shown, they are shown mockingly. Mostly, though, they're just not shown. In fact, I'd say the only time a contrary opinion is shown, is when it's easily mockable.
6) Let's get this fucking straight, once and for all: 99% of all species that HAVE EVER LIVED.... EVER are already extinct. Extinction is the evolutionary norm, survival is the abnormality.
7)A point of interest: in 1991, when the conflict in Iraq took oil from $13/barrel to over $40. This is stated by a broker of some sort- I can't remember his name or title form the movie. It's just an interesting fact, it means nothing- he could have his figures wrong, he didn't cite his source(s).
8) On the mocking of alternate views, titles are changed based on what's being said. Watch closely, you'll see. One person is introduced with a mocking title, and it's not until much later int he movie that anything resembling a real title is given.
9) There is a discussion of FDR. There is no discussion of Keynesian Economics vs Austrian Economics, though blatantly Keynesian ideas are trumpeted at several points (especially during the brief bit about FDR).
10) They mention the nagging study. This is when they deride corporations for, you know, trying to sell people the stuff they make. What isn't mentioned, is that in all the psychological techniques, the absolute best way to resist them, is to know about them. Once you understand that you can be manipulated, and what they're trying to do, you're the most able to ignore their manipulations. This si true in interrogation, and it's true in advertising. This is why new ways of advertising have to be invented. By being aware, people are harder to manipulate.
11) After that whole movie, I still don't know what a corporation is, as opposed to an LTD, an LLC, INC, CO, etc... I have some general ideas- and some foreknowledge; but the movie never really explained what the fuck a corporation actually is.
12) Godwin's Law be damned, I guess. Though, by the very historicity of the case, it may actually be exempt- but still, as an avid internet type, my skin crawls at the violation out of reflex.
13)In general, their whole thing about IBM and the Nazis is the same argument in "Gun Manufacturers should be held accountable for their products being used in gun homicides." This seems apt when a gun company knowingly makes their guns easily moddable to fully auto, because it will sell better on the black market (increasing demand and profits). And yet, the argument isn't a great one. Guns made to shoot targets can be used, equally well, to kill people. The difference is in the user, not in the gun. [As a side note: I support laws that limit the types of firearms available to people. Mostly because I distrust all of you bastards; but also because I have a big mouth, and I'm a huge fucking target.]
In the end, I recommend the movie, in a way. It shouldn't be viewed by the terminally gullible. However, for those of you who aren't going to drink the tang, just because the video is sleek and has high production values, I say give it a look. You may learn something, or be inspired to learn more about something. Personally, I'm about to spend, what I estimate will be, many hours on theWikiGoodness looking up some things.
Also, there is a couple very unfortunate looking people later in the movie. So, if you're like me, and love to feel pretty at the expensive or the genetically unlucky, take a peek. Your self-esteem will thank you.
Read More...
A long-ish while ago, I was sent a link to the 9/11 Truther movie called "A Big Steaming Pile of Bullshit", or something similar. The movie made me so mad, inside of 15 minutes, that I made a HUGE rebuttal, minute by minute, and posted it online. I will probably never do that again, as it was time consuming, and- though I didn't know it at the time- much of that work had already been done (and done better).
Instead, I'll give a general overview of The Corporation, and my problems with it.
First off- for those who have not, or won't watch the movie- an overview. The Corporation lays out a picture that is, in a hyphenated word: anti-corporate. There are many notable names: Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, Naomi Klein, Ray Anderson, etc. There are many more notable corporations: IBM, Wal-Mart, Bechtel, Nike, Interface, GE, etc. The general consensus is: corporations are bad for people.
My take: maybe, but.
First off, let's start with a relatively limited sourcing of claims. There are many claims made in the movie, like all synthetic chemicals are bad for the environment, while only some are cited. The contracts between IBM and the Nazi government are shown, for instance; as are parts of the documents Jane Akre used to sue Fox News in her failed whistle-blower suit. In general, the film only shows a very few instances of corporate greed/malevolence/wrong-doing, and only in those few cases are there citations- if any are given, at all.
That's a minor point, as the few cases they show are all- generally- well documented. I bring it up because lack of documentation/citation is a warning sign. It means, usually, that: (a) the person has no proof whatever they're telling you wasn't a lie when it was told to them; or (b) they didn't figure you'd want proof so, despite their passionate position, they didn't bother actually researching it- and therefore have no idea that it's all conjecture and opinion, with little or no factual basis. There could be other reasons, but I'm too lazy to provide them- but have fun looking them up for yourself, consider it a lesson in how to do your own research when some asshole on teh intardwubz tells you something.
1) Not all synthetic chemicals are bad. Some of them are synthetic versions of chemicals that appear in nature. But, even if 99.999999999% of all synthetic chemicals are bad for people and the environment, there are those that are not. Seems like semantics, huh? It might be; but if you're gonna tell the truth, why exaggerate the claim? Especially when the truth is that some chemicals are only dangerous in large dosages.
2) At one point, while listing the sins of the Corporation, there is the caption: "Harm to animals: experimentation". To be highly pedantic: Fuck off. When is a chicken's life not equal to a humans? When killing that chicken can save the lives of thousands. When killing that chicken means prolonging the life of a family. Vegetarianism be damned. Sure, it may be morally ambiguous to test on animals in some cases, but not in others. Sure, we arbitrarily say: that animal is too cute to be tested on. But the claim is that animal experimentation isn't needed. That's an extraordinary claim, as animal testing has helped us develop much of modern medicine- including vaccines, insulin for diabetics, and better understanding of how our bodies work. So, prove it. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Who said that, and why are they wrong? (Hint: They're not).
3) In general, the film makes pretty damning cases against certain corporations, or certain bits and pieces of corporations, or their histories. Then they take those cases and say "That's how all corporations work!" Which is not a logically valid argument. In fact, all it means is "Hey, I don't like what they did here, or how those people did that there, so all Corporations are bad." Want a quick way to check that reasoning? Change the word "Corporations" to the plural form of your favorite minority. Seems stupid, huh? Making broad generalizations- even if it's about a group that is generally despised- is never a logically valid tactic. In fact, it's an emotional argument, which has nothing to do with logic.
4) Furthermore, there are lots of loaded words used throughout- words that connotate heavily emotional ideas. Like saying "Patriots" instead of the more ambiguous "soldiers". Or "freedom fighters". In addition, there are loaded pictures/symbols. Buckets of skulls, barrels of radioactive waste, scenes of what looks like billowing clouds of polluted smoke pouring from smoke stacks. No way of knowing if that's just water vapor- not that I'm saying it is; but if it was, how would anyone know? These are shock tactics. For those of you who hate Micheal Moore, he's interviewed and footage from his movies/shows is cut-in at various points. It's easy to admit that Moore is very big on shock.
5) When alternate, or opposition, arguments are shown, they are shown mockingly. Mostly, though, they're just not shown. In fact, I'd say the only time a contrary opinion is shown, is when it's easily mockable.
6) Let's get this fucking straight, once and for all: 99% of all species that HAVE EVER LIVED.... EVER are already extinct. Extinction is the evolutionary norm, survival is the abnormality.
7)A point of interest: in 1991, when the conflict in Iraq took oil from $13/barrel to over $40. This is stated by a broker of some sort- I can't remember his name or title form the movie. It's just an interesting fact, it means nothing- he could have his figures wrong, he didn't cite his source(s).
8) On the mocking of alternate views, titles are changed based on what's being said. Watch closely, you'll see. One person is introduced with a mocking title, and it's not until much later int he movie that anything resembling a real title is given.
9) There is a discussion of FDR. There is no discussion of Keynesian Economics vs Austrian Economics, though blatantly Keynesian ideas are trumpeted at several points (especially during the brief bit about FDR).
10) They mention the nagging study. This is when they deride corporations for, you know, trying to sell people the stuff they make. What isn't mentioned, is that in all the psychological techniques, the absolute best way to resist them, is to know about them. Once you understand that you can be manipulated, and what they're trying to do, you're the most able to ignore their manipulations. This si true in interrogation, and it's true in advertising. This is why new ways of advertising have to be invented. By being aware, people are harder to manipulate.
11) After that whole movie, I still don't know what a corporation is, as opposed to an LTD, an LLC, INC, CO, etc... I have some general ideas- and some foreknowledge; but the movie never really explained what the fuck a corporation actually is.
12) Godwin's Law be damned, I guess. Though, by the very historicity of the case, it may actually be exempt- but still, as an avid internet type, my skin crawls at the violation out of reflex.
13)In general, their whole thing about IBM and the Nazis is the same argument in "Gun Manufacturers should be held accountable for their products being used in gun homicides." This seems apt when a gun company knowingly makes their guns easily moddable to fully auto, because it will sell better on the black market (increasing demand and profits). And yet, the argument isn't a great one. Guns made to shoot targets can be used, equally well, to kill people. The difference is in the user, not in the gun. [As a side note: I support laws that limit the types of firearms available to people. Mostly because I distrust all of you bastards; but also because I have a big mouth, and I'm a huge fucking target.]
In the end, I recommend the movie, in a way. It shouldn't be viewed by the terminally gullible. However, for those of you who aren't going to drink the tang, just because the video is sleek and has high production values, I say give it a look. You may learn something, or be inspired to learn more about something. Personally, I'm about to spend, what I estimate will be, many hours on theWikiGoodness looking up some things.
Also, there is a couple very unfortunate looking people later in the movie. So, if you're like me, and love to feel pretty at the expensive or the genetically unlucky, take a peek. Your self-esteem will thank you.
Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
