7.15.2008

If He Only Had A Brain...


Ext. Cross Roads of Yellow Brick Road -- Dorothy and Toto come forward along
the road from b.g. - CAMERA BOOMS down to left as she pauses
in the center of the cross roads -- looks about, speaks --

DOROTHY
Follow the Yellow Brick Road? Follow the
Yellow....?

Dorothy, puzzled as she looks about o.s. --

DOROTHY
Now which way do we go?

Dorothy standing in the center of cross roads -- a Scarecrow on a
pole in the cornfield at right -- he speaks, points to right -- Dorothy
whirls about and looks at him --

SCARECROW
That way is a very nice way.

Scarecrow, his arm pointing to right --

Dorothy, a bit frightened as she looks about o.s. - she speaks,
looks down at Toto as he barks o.s. --

DOROTHY
Who said that?

Toto barking at the Scarecrow o.s. --

Dorothy looks down and speaks to Toto o.s. --

DOROTHY
Don't be silly, Toto. Scarecrows don't talk.


SCARECROW
It's pleasant down that way, too.

Dorothy reacts, watches the Scarecrow o.s. -- speaks to Toto --
looks up as the Scarecrow speaks o.s.

DOROTHY
That's funny. Wasn't he pointing the other
way?

SCARECROW o.s.
Of course, people do....

Scarecrow in field -- shooting past Dorothy in f.g. -- the
Scarecrow crosses his arms and points in both directions --

SCARECROW
...go both ways!

Dorothy reacts, speaks as she starts forward --

DOROTHY
Why....

Dorothy steps forward to the cornfield as she speaks to the
Scarecrow -- CAMERA TRUCKS forward --

DOROTHY
...you did say something, didn't you?

The Scarecrow shakes his head, then nods --

Dorothy looking at the Scarecrow as he nods his head -- she speaks
to him --

DOROTHY
Are you doing that on purpose, or can't you
make up your mind?

The Scarecrow explains -- shows his straw head --

SCARECROW
That's the trouble. I can't make up my
mind. I haven't got a brain -- only straw.

Dorothy questions the Scarecrow o.s. in f.g. --

DOROTHY
How can you talk if you haven't got a....

Scarecrow speaks to Dorothy o.s.in f.g. --

DOROTHY o.s.
...brain?

SCARECROW
I don't know. But some people without
brains do an awful lot of talking, don't
they?

Dorothy nods, speaks --

DOROTHY
Yes, I guess you're right.

SCARECROW
Take my friend Geoffrey, here. He doesn't
have a brain and he talks all the time. He
even writes books.

Pan to Simmons, hanging in the field next to the SCARECROW.

SIMMONS
Howdy-do, little miss. I created him, don'tcha
know.

Dorothy, perplexed --
DOROTHY
You made the Scarecrow?

SIMMONS
Oh heavens, no! He's not a scarecrow. He's a
tree. Well, actually, he's a strawman. But
really, he's a tree.

DOROTHY
Oh my, I'm afraid I don't understand. He doesn't
look like a tree...

Simmons, frowning

SIMMONS
Your problem is that you're using your brain.
You'll never understand me if you keep that up!
Didn't you read the sign?

DOROTHY
Sign?

Camera pans to sign, which reads: NO BRAINZ ALOWED. THIS MEENS U.

DOROTHY
If you please, sir. I didn't notice the sign. But
even if I did, I can't just stop thinking.

SIMMONS
Ah, but you can stop thinking rationally. Take, for
example, the evolution of the tree.

Simmons points to the scarecrow. The scarecrow smiles and nods at Simmons,
then turns to Dorothy and mouths "SAVE ME".

SIMMONS
How would you say the tree evolved to be so tall?

Dorothy thinks for a moment, then

DOROTHY
Well, I suppose that it must have started with the
unicellular organisms present in the sea. Once they
made their way onto land, they started to compete for
resources. Initially, this would have led them to
spread across the landscape, but eventually the
struggle for sunlight imposed a distinct selection
pressure, with improved environmental fitness for
those that attained some measure of vertical height.
Oh, at first it would have been in small increments,
perhaps a cellular layer here, a cellular layer there.
But overall, local patches would exhibit some height
gain. Further adaptations over the millennia would
result in the development of long-chain polysaccharides
(i.e. cellulose), leading to ever complex support
structures that would further gains in height.
Similarly, improvements would have been gained by
the evolution of root structures to take up nutrients
from the soil as well as provide an anchoring mechanism
in the face of varying physical forces. And then...

Simmons, in a thundering voice

SIMMONS
ENOUGH! That is not AT ALL what I'm talking about!

The scarecrow clasps his hands in supplication, pleading to Dorothy.

SIMMONS
What you don't seem to understand is that, true, there
once may have been a landscape covered in these small
organisms, perhaps something like moss. I'll even allow
that there may have even been prehistoric flat plants.
But where did the tree come from, hmmm? Did one of these
flat plants all of a sudden decide that it wanted to be
a Redwood, hmmm? Did it say to itself "OK, I think I'll
create a huge root structure, develop some protective bark
and sap, make some piny bristles to give off moisture so I
can have an osmotic pressure gradient that will wick more
moisture some 400 feet into the air, and while I'm doing
that I might as well develop both male and female
characteristics so I can give off pollen AND drop seeds...

Red in the face, Simmons begins to sweat under the sun. The scarecrow holds
up a sign "FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, PLEASE GET ME OUT OF HERE!"

SIMMONS
Well, little girl? Did a flat plant decide to do all that
on its own? Huh?! And before you say anything, you better
be prepared to show me which plant decided to do it,
because I want to know.

Dorothy looks on, mouth agape...a stunned expression on her face.

SIMMONS
I didn't think so. Your problem is that you think too much
when all your questions can be answered quite easily. There's
no need to go through all that effort of collecting data,
analyzing data, developing and confirming hypotheses. It's all
rubbish! There's only one answer you need...

Dorothy releases the scarecrow, tears streaming down his face in
gratitude.

SCARECROW
C'mon, let's get outta here! I don't have a brain
and even I can tell this guy's a loon.

SIMMONS
Only one answer: WOW.

Dorothy, the scarecrow, and Toto slowly put some distance between them and
Simmons, heading down the yellow brick road for their next big adventure.
Simmons continues to shout at them, even as a woodpecker lands on his forehead.

SIMMONS (o.s, fading)
See something neat in nature? WOW! Whales have blowholes? WOW!
Chickens lay eggs? WOWIE-WOW-WOW!

The woodpecker begins to peck.

FADE OUT

References:
Billions of Missing Links: Upright Plants

The New Yorker Fails With Poe's Law

The cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker depicts Barrack Obama as a muslim and his wife as a terrorist, doing their fist-bump thang in the Oval Office. It's supposed to be satire. It's supposed to poke fun at the way the air head chicken hawks in right wing media portray Obama in their attempts to torpedo his campaign. The problem is that The New Yorker doesn't understand Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

Apparently, The New Yorker doesn't realize that there are people who will believe anything, like homeopathy, crop circles, perpetual motion. Some will even believe that you can turn a cracker cracker into someone who has risen from the dead.

In fact, there are people who believe that Obama is a muslim. After all, his middle name is Hussein, so he must be, right? He's probably even related to Saddam, right?? Oh, and Fox News planted the idea that Obama's fist bump with his wife might be some "terrorist jab". Rush Limbaugh has falsely stated that "Hamas has endorsed Obama..." Now, there will be people who will look at the cover of The New Yorker and, without reading a word, conclude that the magazine concurs with these falsities. It's not much of a stretch to expect that people will now think that Michelle Obama owns an AK-47. Some people just aren't smart enough to pick up on satire*, and if you have to explain a joke, it ain't funny!

*(except, of course, all the wonderful visitors to this blog)

7.14.2008

Bare Chested Mormons


More women swoon for more men Mormons, or at least those hunky types just back from their missionary positions. In 2007, twelve such individuals posed shirtless for a pinup calendar, currently on sell at Mormons Exposed. By showing off their ripped Moronis and bulging Nephis, Chad Hardy, the calendar's creator, says
The Men on a Mission calendar is intended to be a light-hearted and fun spin on a social taboo. Far too much fear, hatred, anger and violence is committed in the name of religion. By showing these missionaries as regular people, we hope to build a common thread that can break down some of the barriers that have been built up. Driven by the desire to serve as an advocate for change, Mormons Exposed created a national product that consumers everywhere can find humorous and enjoyable.

Alas for poor Chad, it seems the presence of so much beef-cake in their midst is not an image the Church of Latter Day Saints would like to project. So, they excommunicated poor Chad. Somehow, I doubt Chad is too concerned over the consequences of his religious ignominy:
Hardy has been inactive in the Mormon church for the past six years. He no longer pays tithing or wears the religious undergarments considered sacred. In an interview last week, Hardy said he had always struggled to fit in and live up to the expectations of membership.

Some of the models were also called in for punishment. Apparently they weren't excommunicated. Maybe they were just given a spanking, instantly converting a few hundred volunteers in the process.

And finally, any last words from Hardy?
"This calendar is my contribution to society," Hardy says. "We need to get over ourselves."

And next year, Hardy promises, "it's girls."

7.13.2008

Where Will You Go When You Die?

One person's answer:

Tackling The Myth of Gravity

It is only satire but it's a nice illustration of the Discovery Institute's tactics against the theory of evolution.

Discovery Institute Takes on Gravity Myth
Hot on the heels of a recent Louisiana victory in the fight against evolution, the Seattle-based think tank Discovery Institute held a press conference Thursday to announce their latest initiative: defeating the myth of gravity.

Robert Crowther, Discovery’s director of communications was visibly excited as he detailed the Institute’s plan for attacking what he refers to as the sloppy, inaccurate, and overtly biased portrayal of the theory of gravity.


We should also expect them to put the earth back at the center of the solar system.

7.12.2008

7.11.2008

Surprise Endings

The following is an opinion piece from the "letters to the editor" department in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. It is in response to an earlier article about the support for Intelligent Design.

Of the eight scientists mentioned by name, four work for the Discovery Institute, a group whose purpose, stated in a once-secret document, is to "replace materialistic explanations with the understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Two of the scientists seem rather extreme, and one other takes a moderate position and advocates testing Intelligent Design (ID) before teaching it in schools.

On the subject of peer-reviewed articles, Michael Behe said, during the trial of Kitzmiller vs. Dover, "There are no peer-reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments." Behe is one of ID's most important figures.

The writer sounds like he has his facts down and has a better understanding of the evolution/ID controversy than most people. As I read on, I could quibble with some of the points, maybe change something here or there, emphasize this and not that, etc. So, it was just minor editorial nits but basically the argument was sound.

Then, at the end of the article, I was shocked to read this:

It is unscientific to teach so flawed a theory as ID. You should test theories before, and not after, shoving them down the throats of students.

Dylan T. Vrana, Age 12.

Mechanicsville.
Damn. Age 12.

Hey Jenny McCarthy - Thanks A Lot!

Major measles outbreaks are occurring because people are avoiding vaccinations. Why are they avoiding vaccinations? Because morons like Jenny McCarthy say vaccinations cause autism and morons like Oprah Winfrey giver her a vehicle to spew her garbage to the public. Then there are the morons in media outlets which do very little to counter her claims with real science.

Measles Outbreak Spreads to 15 States, Largest in 10 Years
"Cases started springing up in May, when more than 70 people in a dozen states became ill. According to federal health officials, most of the victims were not vaccinated against the highly contagious virus."

"What concerns me is the trend of more and more people not vaccinating their children because of fears that vaccines cause autism — although no studies have proven this to be true," Dr. Joseph Rahimian, an infectious disease specialist at St. Vincent's Hospital in Manhattan, told FOXNews.com in May.


Why anyone would trust Jenny McCarthy is beyond me. I feel sorry for those who contracted the disease, but if they took Jenny's advice over their doctor's, then the results are not unexpected. Even though vaccinations have eliminated measles in the United States, the disease can still be contracted abroad by those unvaccinated. It can then be brought home and transferred to other school children, who, again if not vaccinated, will be susceptible. A tiny percentage of the population who choose not to get vaccinated are depending on others to be vaccinated to prevent an all out epidemic. However, once this percentage rises to 10% or more, there is a significant chance that outbreaks will occur. Measles, if you didn't know, can be fatal. Although rare, the potential exists.

So, let's all thank Jenny McCarthy for her service in pseudoscience and the real dangers she brings to her countrymen.

7.10.2008

The Racially Insensitive Singularity

Q: What object in the universe has a gravitational pull so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape?

A: A pointlike singularity with a surrounding event horizon, of course. What were you thinking? Oh...that? You didn't really go there, did you? You weren't really thinking "B---- H---", were you? If so and if you happen to be a Dallas County commissioner, then you're a racially insensitive bastard.

Dallas County officials spar over 'black hole' comment
Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections "has become a black hole" because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.

Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud "Excuse me!" He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a "white hole."

That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.

To alleviate further confusion in the future, I offer this handy-dandy little Q&A to steer you in the right direction and keep you out of similar awkward situations:

Q: What kind of box is recovered from airplane crashes?
A: The airplane crash box

Q: What is the common name of the bubonic plague during the 14th century?
A: The 14th century bubonic plague

Q: What is the common name of pneumoconiosis caused by habitual inhalation of coal dust?
A: Pneumoconiosis from habitual inhalation of coal dust

Q: What do you call the mountains that are found in
W South Dakota & NE Wyoming?
A: The mountains

Q: What do you get when someone punches you in the eye?
A: A bruisy eye

Q: What do you call someone who has achieved expert rating in Judo or Karate?
A: Sir or ma'am.

Q: What do you call the common North American bear?
A: Ursus Americanus. Deal with it.

Discotute's Crazy Uncle Escapes Again

The Discovery Institute's (aka Discotute) Geoffrey Simmons has apparently escaped from his cage and gotten access to a computer again to pimp his fantasy novel, Billions of Missing Links (BOML), which finds just about everything in nature to be amazing. The Discotute has no problem with just a little bit of evolution, something they call microevolution or variations within kind. So, they really shouldn't have a problem with the little bit of evolution it takes to affix a barnacle or mollusk firmly to its perch. Simmons, on the other hand, finds this phenomenon simply amazing.
Billions of Missing Links: Barnacles and Mussels
Mussels have a similar glue, which sets underwater and has enormous strength. It takes about five minutes for the mussel to create a “dab” of this glue beneath its foot on a piling or rock. Twenty dabs will do it, and the job can be completed overnight. Imagine the consternation of intermediate species when they secreted what they thought was glue, but kept being washed away by the waves. Or the species that couldn’t store their glue and found their bivalves stuck together.
The adhesives that we produce today work really well on dry land, however we have yet to invent a compound that will form an adhesive underwater. Mussels, mollusks, and barnacles do this rather well - in fact, incredibly well. For barnacles, their "glue" is made by combining proteins together, much the same as we make epoxy from two different parts. Mix the two parts together, and they can solidify or create a fast curing adhesive. The barnacles have two separate glands to keep these proteins separate.

Mussels, on the other hand, create a gelatinous compound that streams out beneath their "foot" as an adhesive strand called a byssus and mussels use them not only to anchor themselves down, but also to permanently weld predators where they are.

Now all this sounds like I might be supporting Simmons' "that's incredible" way of thinking. Indeed, it is incredible. Nature is amazing. But that doesn't mean it's inexplicable. Just because Simmons can't imagine how barnacles evolved with two separate glands to keep epoxy components apart doesn't mean it didn't happen. Discotute might tell us the odds of this happening are a longshot, but I don't think that even they would say microevolution couldn't account for it. After all, they are trying to put intelligent design on some sort of scientific foundation, so they can't adopt Simmons' way of thinking otherwise their arguments would all boil down to incredulity.

So why even give Simmons a platform? Why doesn't Behe criticize Simmons? Why not Luskin or Dembski? They have to see Simmons as a liability, so why keep him on? My guess is that they need his credentials, whatever those are. They can't afford to lose PhDs otherwise they lose a bit of that "air of legitimacy" that they've tried to craft for themselves. No, it really sounds like Simmons is the Discotute's crazy old uncle that they keep locked away in the attic. Someone obviously left the door unlocked after feeding time.

References:
Underwater adhesion: The Barnacle Way
The Chemistry of...Glue
Chemists Crack Secret of Nature's Super Glue
Salty Water Makes Barnacles Stick

Nicole Kidman's New Baby Girl - How Did Wagih Samweil Do?

At the beginning of 2008, Australia's "most accurate psychic" Wagih Samweil predicted

"It's to be, like she will try to hide it from the media and she will be really discreet," our psychic said.

"Nicole Kidman's going to have a girl. Definitely. There's no doubt about it. She's going to have a girl."

Against enormous odds, Samwise Samweil was correct. He also correctly predicted that Kidman would seek privacy during her pregnancy. And although he didn't explicitly say so, Wagih correctly predicted that Kidman would have the baby and not Keith Urban. In my book, that's 3 for 3.

As an aside, the Kidman/Urban baby girl is named Sunday Rose Kidman Urban. Some have said the "Sunday" is a slight at Tom Cruise and Scientology. That would be cool if it was true, but it turns out to be more mundane than that. According to PEOPLE magazine,
The beautiful baby girl, who was born on July 7 in Nashville to parents Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban, is named after early 20th-century artist's muse Sunday Reed, PEOPLE has confirmed. Her middle name, Rose, is a nod to Urban's late grandmother Rose.
Meanwhile, Wagih Samweil's prediction on the next president of the United States is in doubt. Or is it?

"Hillary Clinton. There's no doubt about it. She will be the first female president of the USA. No doubt about it? No doubt about it," Mr Samweil said.

"She'll definitely take over. Will she make a good president? She will be loved a lot."

So far, Hillary is out of the running. But I wonder if there's something to that "She'll definitely take over" quote. Hmmmm...what could Hillary be planning? I guess we'll have to revisit this prediction in January 2009.

7.08.2008

The Final Space Shuttle Missions

NASA has set the dates for the final ten space shuttle missions. One is the last Hubble reservicing mission and two are International Space Station contingency flights. The dates are

10/08/08 - Atlantis (STS-125) to Hubble
11/10/08 - Endeavour (STS-126) to ISS Servicing
02/12/09 - Discovery (STS-119) to ISS Assembly
05/15/09 - Endeavour (STS-127) to ISS Assembly (I know one of the astronauts on this mission - maybe I can wrangle a site pass)
07/30/09 - Atlantis (STS-128) to ISS Assembly
10/15/09 - Discovery (STS-129) to ISS Servicing
12/10/09 - Endeavour (STS-130) to ISS Assembly (with Cupola, finally!)
02/11/10 - Atlantis (STS-131) to ISS Assembly
04/08/10 - Discovery (STS-132) to ISS Assembly
05/31/10 - Endeavour (STS-133) to ISS Assembly

Don't miss your chance to head to Florida and see a shuttle launch. You can check your local Representative's or Senator's website to request onsite passes, or you can head to the beach. Anywhere within 10 to 15 miles of the launch pad is almost guaranteed to give you a good look as the shuttle vaults into orbit. But there really is nothing like being on the grounds of Cape Canaveral. I've been to shuttle three launches, not including one that was delayed day after day.

Just a slice of Americana that shouldn't be passed up...

Sylvia Browne's Incredible Work Ethic

Sylvia Browne is currently on her farewell tour, and it feels like she's been farewelling us for almost two years now. Canada's dishrag, The Star Phoenix, has just published a gushing article about Sylvia, focusing on here tireless work ethic.

Sylvia Browne wants a psychic reading, but for a woman who estimates she has given millions of them to clients around the world, getting one isn't so easy.

"I'd love to get a reading, are you kidding? Of course I would, but I've never been able to," laments Browne in a recent telephone interview from San Jose, Calif.

With this incredible outpouring of psychic energy, you would think Sylvia would be trim and svelte...but maybe she just burns neurons instead of all that fat. I mean really, just do the math. She estimates to have given millions of psychic readings. Let's see, millions would have to be at least two million. According to wikipedia, she started giving readings in 1974. Assume she has gives readings every day for those 34 years. That's 12,410 days. To give what would qualify as millions of readings since then, she would have to give about 160 readings every 24 hours. If we allow her 8 hours per day to eat, sleep, and make her toilet, then she must be giving 10 readings per hour on average. Non-stop. For 34 years.

That's one reading every six minutes. It reminds me of the Alien Queen popping out eggs. But that's just me.

The Star Phoenix continues with their SB love affair:

"It wouldn't be terrible if everybody believed in you, but I could care less," she says of her critics. "If you're doing what you know in your heart is pure and you do what God -- you believe that's what he wants you to do -- you can't let that bother you."

And for those who say she's faking psychic talent to make money: "Well, they should read my financials and then they wouldn't say that. I told somebody the other day that you've never seen a psychic on the Forbes 500, have you?"

Oh snap! There goes all my criticisms about her. Nevermind the $89 - $139 (Canadian) (plus fees) ticket to her farewell tour, nevermind the 50+ books she's published, nevermind speaking fees - her financials will show us that she's not about money. But there is money being made, and it is going somewhere and that somewhere is probably a nice shelter to protect against the cold, harsh winds that blow during tax season.

See Stop Sylvia Browne for all the really good dirt on SB.

7.07.2008

Freedomfest Debates

Why don't I ever hear about these things way ahead of time? Oh well, maybe I can watch from home on Pay Per View. This poster (too clever by half) is the introduction:


Besides the Hitchens/D'Souza debate, another that promises to get the Discovery Institute rocking is the Michael Shermer/Ronald Bailey tag team match against Stephen Meyer/George Gilder on "Is There Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature?"

I hear Casey Luskin will be handling the spit bucket for the ID side.

For more, checkout the Freedom Fest website. Also, Ronald Bailey has a nice writeup (well, it's mostly quoting Ars Technica) on the conservative scoundrels over at Conservapedia and their headmaster's attack on Richard Lenski. It's through his article that I found out about the 8 Great Debates in '08.

7.06.2008

Ghost Photographs - What Won't Pass For A Ghost?

You stand looking out your window as the snow falls lightly. After a few minutes you start to leave when you notice the window has been fogged, slowly dissipating. You take a picture.

You reach out to touch your reflection in the mirror...nothing is there, only an image of you looking back. However, when you withdraw your hand, you notice fingerprints remain. You reach for your camera.

You come in out of the rain and walk to your bathroom to get a towel. You turn around and notice muddy footprints have followed you. You touch them and they're still wet. You look up at your wife. She's scared. Or angry. You're not sure which. You snap a photo.

What won't pass for the unexplained these days? The above scenarios all have easily recognizable natural explanations. But sometimes people can't find explanations so easily and they are quick to provide some alternate, supernatural reasons which, even in the absence of logic, lends some measure of certainty to their lives, even if that certainty revolves around a fantasy.

The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe has posted a recent video on ghost pictures...or more specifically, "unexplained" ghost streaks in photographs. Much like "orbs", these are nothing more than artifacts of photography but are perpetuated as unexplained mysteries by those who either do not understand how exposure works or are deliberately misleading the public.

7.05.2008

The 4.5 Billion Year Old UFO

Recently, a 4.5 billion year old UFO was spotted in Wales. The transcript of the alerting call follows:
Control: "South Wales Police, what's your emergency?"

Caller: "It's not really. I just need to inform you that across the mountain there's a bright stationary object."

Control: "Right."

Caller: "If you've got a couple of minutes perhaps you could find out what it is? It's been there at least half an hour and it's still there."

Control: "It's been there for half an hour. Right. Is it actually on the mountain or in the sky?"

Caller: "It's in the air."

Control: "I will send someone up there now to check it out."

Caller: "OK."

Police investigated and discovered the mysterious, lingering floating object was our very own Moon.

Somewhere near one of the extremities of the Gaussian curve of human psyche is a spot reserved especially for people who easily confuse the moon for an unidentified flying object. We have no idea what this person was thinking, but this story just goes to show that there are people with people brains who stop thinking critically if they think at all. If the moon can be taken for a UFO, why not an assemblage of amino acids as the handiwork of some alien intelligence (ala Discovery Institute's belief in intelligent design)?
After the police patrol car arrives, the script reveals the exchange between the control room and the police officer sent to the scene.

Control: "Alpha Zulu 20, this object in the sky, did anyone have a look at it?"

Officer: "Yes, it's the moon. Over."
This is where the Skipper hits Gilligan with his hat.

(BTW, Gilligan's Island can be seen for free here)

7.03.2008

What, Me Cuss? WTF!

Holy crap...is this my blog?
The Blog-O-Cuss Meter - Do you cuss a lot in your blog or website?
OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets

Damn! I haven't even gotten started!

ABC News - Dark Age Kookiness Reporting


The ABC News website is dipping it's foot into the pool of woo again. Aw hell, who am I kidding? They jumped headfirst into it with this article:

Bush in Retrograde; Obama, McCain Rising
Astrologers Predict Election Day, Hillary's Senate Departure, and Bloomberg on November Ticket
In May, seven astrologers at the United Astrology Conference in Denver predicted that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. would win the White House in November, citing Saturn's opposition to Uranus on Election Day as a celestial occurrence that pits a stodgy planet against one of rebellion, resulting in transformation and social upheaval.

I held out hope to the very end that they might present just an inkling that some people think astrology is crap. But no, they like the woo. It's so warm and squishy that they can't bring themselves to let it go.

7.01.2008

Colorology? Color Me Skeptical!


What do colors say about you? Clashing colors might tell the world you have no fashion sense, but more importantly, what do colors say about anything? What feelings come to mind with RED? What do you think of when you see GREEN? PINK? I bet if you write down some of the most common colors and associated them with some familiar property or emotion, you would likely be good enough to be a Colorologist. But to make money at it, you have to be savvy enough not to care that you're selling snake oil to those suckers who are born every minute. Here's the breakdown on several colors (ref):

Blue - Blue calls to mind feelings of calmness or serenity. It is often described as peaceful, tranquil, secure, and orderly.
Yellow - Yellow is a bright that is often described as cheery and warm.
Red - Red is a bright, warm color that evokes strong emotions.
Green - Green is a cool color that symbolizes nature and the natural world.
Pink - Pink is essentially a light red and is usually associated with love and romance.
Purple - Purple is the symbol of royalty and wealth.
White - (<--it's there, just have to highlight it) White represents purity or innocence.
Black
- Black is associated with death and morning in many cultures. It is also associated with unhappiness, sexuality, formality, and sophistication.
Brown - Brown is a natural color that evokes a sense of strength and reliability.

Not too hard, is it? Over time, we've learned to associate these colors with the given symbolism. Additionally, with colorology, you can
  • Reduce stress
  • Relieve headaches & pain
  • Improve your physical health
  • Affect your moods, attitudes & emotional health
  • Impact your perception & learning processes
  • Help eliminate eye strain
  • Affect your creativity & productivity
  • Improve retention, information processing & retrieving of new information
  • Help you understand how your body functions
  • Change the way you perceive your connection to the Universe
Psychologists and advertisers know the effect color can have on emotions and perceptions. Room colors can affect moods. The inside living spaces of submarines are painted certain colors to provide depth perception and make a 6-month stay as easy as possible on your psyche. So I'll allow some of the elements above, but I can't see how colorology will help me understand how my body functions. That's utter nonsense. Most of the others can be reduced to simple psychological effects (e.g. mood, stress relief, etc.)

The psychology of colors is fairly well understood. Legitimate professionals can make a lot of money to help companies capitalize on the effect colors have on us. But a colorologist is nothing more than a charlatan blowing rainbows at you.

By the way, you can take a color quiz here. Your results will be just as good as anything you get from a colorologist...or a fortune cookie.

Conservation of Ignorance


I have a theory. I believe that, in the United States at least, ignorance is conserved. In the distant past, scientific theories lived and died based on evidence from observation and experiment. While we once believed the earth was at the center of the universe, observations proved otherwise. Whereas we once believed the earth was flat, Magellan proved that it was round. Yet here in the U.S., alternative theories continue to crop up even as experiments show us that only one theory is really correct. Let me illustrate.

There is currently overwhelming evidence that evolution is the best theory to explain the variety of species on this planet. Even so, Intelligent Design proponents reject much of this support for evolution in favor of their own hypothesis without their own supporting evidence. Quantum theory is one of the most tested theories in all of science, yet it is misused as an explanation for many alternative healing remedies. Electromagnetism provides the pillar of support for magnetic therapy. The mere mention that billions of bacteria reside in your gut simply begs for daily colonics. And somehow, the ability of CO2 molecules to absorb and reemit infrared radiation has become the biggest hoax ever created.

Ignorance is Conserved. Whenever a scientific theory is supported by actual evidence, there arises another "theory" (or more likely a fad) equal and opposite that negates the rational conclusions. These alternative theories are not necessarily so apparent as, say, intelligent design is when compared to evolution. They can be as simple as a media report claiming someone has built a car that runs off water, or that Joe Schmo has nearly finished his perpetual motion machine in his garage, or that, while scientists dissent, Jenny McArthy thinks vaccines cause autism. If ten people believe one-tenth of the garbage that's out there, well that's Conservation of Ignorance.

And nowhere is ignorance conserved more than at our very own National Center for the Conservation of Ignorance (NCCI)...otherwise known as the White House. As with any conservation law, to ensure some quantity remains conserved, work must be done to restore the balance. If, for example, the surgeon general wants to release evidence-based reports on stem cells, sex education, or emergency contraception, Conservation of Ignorance demands that you rewrite or suppress the reports entirely. If a NASA scientist (oh, say someone like James Hansen) wants to provide evidence for Global Warming, thereby increasing the general surplus of knowledge in the world, he must be muzzled. And when the Environmental Protection Agency sends you an email concluding that greenhouse gases are pollutants, then the best thing to do is not open the email. One of the most effective ways of conserving ignorance when Mr. KNOWLEDGE comes knocking at the door is to just pretend you're not at home. Not only do you maintain the natural order of things, but you get to be a kid again. Playing pretend can be so much fun!
White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., “showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases,” one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. “That’s not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can’t work.”

Some people will remember that George W. Bush promised, during his 2000 campaign for the White House, to restrict CO2 emissions from power plants. They might also remember that, only two months into his presidency, he reneged on this promise. Andy Revkin recalls that time in his Dot Earth blog:
Return to Sender: E.P.A. E-Mail on CO2 Refused by Administration. Old Pattern Back?
Advice from climate experts at the Environmental Protection Agency was sought but also ignored. A March 7 memorandum from agency experts to the White House team recommended that the carbon dioxide pledge be kept, saying the Energy Department study “was based on assumptions that do not apply” to Mr. Bush’s plan and “inflates the costs of achieving carbon dioxide reductions.” The memo was given to The New York Times by a former E.P.A. official who says science was not adequately considered.
Of course, I know I'm running a risk with my theory. Somebody reading this may develop their own insights or be motivated to learn more about these issues. That means someone else's IQ will plummet. I just hope its no-wun I no.