Monday, February 09, 2009
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Random Thought
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...
Junkies are shooting up with syringes full of baby brains, so they can function enough to pull down that next score.
Read More...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
