Well, it makes sense to me. What does it say about the state of news in America? ...a lot. As to what, I'll leave that to you.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Cronkite's Sucessor
Well, it makes sense to me. What does it say about the state of news in America? ...a lot. As to what, I'll leave that to you.
Reflections...
You know, I'll never get any blog to the point where people consistently read it; and that's okay with me. Why? Because it's really too much work. Unless you're already a notable person or someone with no life, most people don't have the time to put into blogging, or the pimping of it on other related sites. I dislike reading skeptical forums, for example, because I get very little out of them and I can usually contribute even less. Read other blogs is okay but I often don't comment so who is gonna know about this? Not enough that it will matter, but here I can express myself in an open way and not care too much because not enough people know about it to make a difference; and I'm fine with that...
So, with school out there's nothing really to talk about on that end and honestly, there's not been much on the religious end either. I've listen to the latest "Reasonable Doubts" but haven't heard much to blog about. So what about skepticism? Well, what is there to say? For all that it is a marked improvement from Christianity, of which I partook my reality for most of my life, sometimes I wanna bang my head against a wall. When I listen to the skeptical angle, most of the time I agree with it, and when I listen to the believe end, I usually end up scratching my head. Still, there are times where I think the believe makes a good point while I wanna slap the crap outta the skeptic. I know nothing is perfect or always puts its best foot forward but sometimes I wonder where one draws the line.
For example: Sasquatch. While I am a "Bigfoot Hopeful", as Brian Dunning put it, the likelihood of its existence thus was is slim to none in my book. When you listen to enough of the believer's side, you begin to question things; which is good. Still, I have yet to be persuaded to believe anything more than whatever people are experiencing or think they are experiencing is something worth investigating, even if it is all in the mind. It's not that Sasquatch does not exist per say, it is that when one starts with a null hypothesis, the end conclusion for the creature is dubious at best with an inconclusive or negative. Yet, ask a random skeptic and their likely answer will be laughter or a very confident no. Granted, I, too, am confident in my stance but the stance refereed to above is one of total confidence, like the type you give to gravity. They don't even give it a second thought; and perhaps not without understandable reasons.
Is this proper skepticism? No, and I'm not the first skeptic to discuss this. My angle on the topic is this: the arrogance I get from how certain topics are handled by certain skeptics, skeptics in general, or groups of skeptics, reeks of the same B.S. that got me to despise church and Christianity in general. Yep, I went there. Now, I fully understand the human limitations in play here and I don't expect perfection from no one, but it bugs me when I try for something different and it's seems less than a 180 and more like a mirror: reversed views, same stank subject. While I enjoy listening to the skeptical and believer podcasts, sometimes I just wanna slap 'em both. While I try to be interactive in the MABRC forum, the discussions I've come across on the JREF forums and others lead me to the conclusion that I will just get upset if I interact with those sites and likely cannot contribute anything worthwhile to them. Pessimistic? Maybe, be I think more realistic.
I'm not that well verses in any particular subject, I just know enough to keep pace in most conversations. I'm opinionated and can speak my mind but little that will do with people who are very superior debaters. That is another factors that tweaks me. It seems most things in life have NOTHING to no with right & wrong, truth & fiction, etc. but rather how one present an argument. Thus, you can be completely wrong yet win an argument and thus be "right". Facts appearently mean little in this world of believers and skeptics. Even if Sasquatch is real, for example, because of the lack of evidence and such one can successfully argue against a unknown truth. Conversely, those who peddle woo and other BS can win over their case with sly wording or better debate skills. What is the point then of someone like me in all this? I can mark the odd comment about what works and what doesn't or cast doubt or insight onto a random topic but sowing seeds is not my cup of tea. Most of my seeds die anyway...
So I liken to shows like "No Agenda" and see a lot of what I learned in my communication classes about the bs that appears to dictate and govern this planet. Monsanto might be evil, but it's certainly not unique. I listened to the "Skeptoid" episode about Monsanto and all the type around it, as I have the one about Wal-Mart, and while Dunning brings up good points every conspiracy theorist should take heed, he does seem to miss out on the real negative impacts these places are having. While I agree mostly with his arguments presented during the episodes, he seems to miss the point about black listed farmers and government manipulation of health standards. Unique? No, but just as dangerous as ever. Is the danger over-hyped by these people who see Monsanto as the "Great Satan"? Perhaps, but these same conspiracy theorists often bring up great points that are all too often overshadowed by more ludicrous claims.
Even if they feel it true, it might behoove them to keep out the more fringe elements of their beliefs to focus on topics of concern that they can get the most people to back, thereby bolstering their desires to overturn the evil empires of the planet by getting more people to be proactive in their governments. "No Agenda", for example, time and again does a lot of good informing the podcasting public about a lot of bs in North America, Europe, and other places that needs to be addressed. However, its host Adam Curry likes to go off the deep end with some extreme world government fears. While I agree with John C. Dvorak more often than not, he does not seem to provide a larger balance to Curry's agenda. While I have no problem with what Curry thinks, I fear his holistic world view scares off too many listeners. He needs to focus more on what can be done rather than lamenting most episodes how he and his listeners will only live longer but cannot escape our impending doom.
While most skeptics might balk about supporting such a show as "No Agenda", again it proves as a good example of good information being present along with a lot of bs anti-vaccination rhetoric and NWO scare-tactics. Yet, when one looks into things like the Lisbon Treaty, the current rushed trials for Swine Flu/Mexican Flu vaccines, the proposed US health care reform bill, etc. and how all of these are being handled and their contents, it should give anyone cause for pause. I would write Adam and John about these concerns but I'd likely be labeled a government shill and at best just ignored. It was a remains a good show with good information but as of now and for a while now "No Agenda" has been a lacking in a lot of way towards content, objective analysis, and believability. This said, it has a record of observations that cannot be ignored.
What is a skeptic to do? What is a communication student to do? "Skepticality" and "Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" are great escapes back to sanity and science yet sometimes I wonder whether all this critical thinking, skepticism, and the like is really being put to good use. Fuck the conspiracy nutters, there is a shit-ton of negative stuff going on that anyone with half a brain and realize and understand. While I support the school focus and anti-woo and pro-science focus that skepticism had currently I think it needs to refocus its efforts on reforming government. Why? Because just like with humanity destroying this planet in various ways, we need to clean up things locally and then move up to larger projects, as such will make the bigger things no so challenging. Corruption needs to be addressed, as does a lot of political overburden and bs. Adding to these efforts will help expose the lack of evil empire plus do something even the believers can get behind. The same efforts to get homeopathy loopholes fix also helps towards cleaning up the government in general (this statement and some others are more US-centric but they can also apply internationally).
Skeptics need to listen to "Rage Against the Machine" more and realize that there are things that need to be addressed that have multiple positive outcomes, including the often more narrow focuses taken by a majority of skeptics. Skeptics should be going over government documents, like the Lisbon Treaty, Patriot Act, etc. and helping to expose the bs and helping their fellow countrymen/women understand what is going on. It is not enough just to go after 9-11 truthers. In fact, I would go as far as to say most skeptics should ignore them, for there are enough who will address them, and focus instead on holding the government to account over the inconsistencies and sidestepping that the US government has done about the topic and help expose the real truth that is being hidden by political double-speak and legislative wording. Such can be applied to other areas that skeptics love or loath to tread. How do you make skepticism sexy, marketable, and truly successful? You make its output practical, progressive, and productive to the wider world.
So, with school out there's nothing really to talk about on that end and honestly, there's not been much on the religious end either. I've listen to the latest "Reasonable Doubts" but haven't heard much to blog about. So what about skepticism? Well, what is there to say? For all that it is a marked improvement from Christianity, of which I partook my reality for most of my life, sometimes I wanna bang my head against a wall. When I listen to the skeptical angle, most of the time I agree with it, and when I listen to the believe end, I usually end up scratching my head. Still, there are times where I think the believe makes a good point while I wanna slap the crap outta the skeptic. I know nothing is perfect or always puts its best foot forward but sometimes I wonder where one draws the line.
For example: Sasquatch. While I am a "Bigfoot Hopeful", as Brian Dunning put it, the likelihood of its existence thus was is slim to none in my book. When you listen to enough of the believer's side, you begin to question things; which is good. Still, I have yet to be persuaded to believe anything more than whatever people are experiencing or think they are experiencing is something worth investigating, even if it is all in the mind. It's not that Sasquatch does not exist per say, it is that when one starts with a null hypothesis, the end conclusion for the creature is dubious at best with an inconclusive or negative. Yet, ask a random skeptic and their likely answer will be laughter or a very confident no. Granted, I, too, am confident in my stance but the stance refereed to above is one of total confidence, like the type you give to gravity. They don't even give it a second thought; and perhaps not without understandable reasons.
Is this proper skepticism? No, and I'm not the first skeptic to discuss this. My angle on the topic is this: the arrogance I get from how certain topics are handled by certain skeptics, skeptics in general, or groups of skeptics, reeks of the same B.S. that got me to despise church and Christianity in general. Yep, I went there. Now, I fully understand the human limitations in play here and I don't expect perfection from no one, but it bugs me when I try for something different and it's seems less than a 180 and more like a mirror: reversed views, same stank subject. While I enjoy listening to the skeptical and believer podcasts, sometimes I just wanna slap 'em both. While I try to be interactive in the MABRC forum, the discussions I've come across on the JREF forums and others lead me to the conclusion that I will just get upset if I interact with those sites and likely cannot contribute anything worthwhile to them. Pessimistic? Maybe, be I think more realistic.
I'm not that well verses in any particular subject, I just know enough to keep pace in most conversations. I'm opinionated and can speak my mind but little that will do with people who are very superior debaters. That is another factors that tweaks me. It seems most things in life have NOTHING to no with right & wrong, truth & fiction, etc. but rather how one present an argument. Thus, you can be completely wrong yet win an argument and thus be "right". Facts appearently mean little in this world of believers and skeptics. Even if Sasquatch is real, for example, because of the lack of evidence and such one can successfully argue against a unknown truth. Conversely, those who peddle woo and other BS can win over their case with sly wording or better debate skills. What is the point then of someone like me in all this? I can mark the odd comment about what works and what doesn't or cast doubt or insight onto a random topic but sowing seeds is not my cup of tea. Most of my seeds die anyway...
So I liken to shows like "No Agenda" and see a lot of what I learned in my communication classes about the bs that appears to dictate and govern this planet. Monsanto might be evil, but it's certainly not unique. I listened to the "Skeptoid" episode about Monsanto and all the type around it, as I have the one about Wal-Mart, and while Dunning brings up good points every conspiracy theorist should take heed, he does seem to miss out on the real negative impacts these places are having. While I agree mostly with his arguments presented during the episodes, he seems to miss the point about black listed farmers and government manipulation of health standards. Unique? No, but just as dangerous as ever. Is the danger over-hyped by these people who see Monsanto as the "Great Satan"? Perhaps, but these same conspiracy theorists often bring up great points that are all too often overshadowed by more ludicrous claims.
Even if they feel it true, it might behoove them to keep out the more fringe elements of their beliefs to focus on topics of concern that they can get the most people to back, thereby bolstering their desires to overturn the evil empires of the planet by getting more people to be proactive in their governments. "No Agenda", for example, time and again does a lot of good informing the podcasting public about a lot of bs in North America, Europe, and other places that needs to be addressed. However, its host Adam Curry likes to go off the deep end with some extreme world government fears. While I agree with John C. Dvorak more often than not, he does not seem to provide a larger balance to Curry's agenda. While I have no problem with what Curry thinks, I fear his holistic world view scares off too many listeners. He needs to focus more on what can be done rather than lamenting most episodes how he and his listeners will only live longer but cannot escape our impending doom.
While most skeptics might balk about supporting such a show as "No Agenda", again it proves as a good example of good information being present along with a lot of bs anti-vaccination rhetoric and NWO scare-tactics. Yet, when one looks into things like the Lisbon Treaty, the current rushed trials for Swine Flu/Mexican Flu vaccines, the proposed US health care reform bill, etc. and how all of these are being handled and their contents, it should give anyone cause for pause. I would write Adam and John about these concerns but I'd likely be labeled a government shill and at best just ignored. It was a remains a good show with good information but as of now and for a while now "No Agenda" has been a lacking in a lot of way towards content, objective analysis, and believability. This said, it has a record of observations that cannot be ignored.
What is a skeptic to do? What is a communication student to do? "Skepticality" and "Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" are great escapes back to sanity and science yet sometimes I wonder whether all this critical thinking, skepticism, and the like is really being put to good use. Fuck the conspiracy nutters, there is a shit-ton of negative stuff going on that anyone with half a brain and realize and understand. While I support the school focus and anti-woo and pro-science focus that skepticism had currently I think it needs to refocus its efforts on reforming government. Why? Because just like with humanity destroying this planet in various ways, we need to clean up things locally and then move up to larger projects, as such will make the bigger things no so challenging. Corruption needs to be addressed, as does a lot of political overburden and bs. Adding to these efforts will help expose the lack of evil empire plus do something even the believers can get behind. The same efforts to get homeopathy loopholes fix also helps towards cleaning up the government in general (this statement and some others are more US-centric but they can also apply internationally).
Skeptics need to listen to "Rage Against the Machine" more and realize that there are things that need to be addressed that have multiple positive outcomes, including the often more narrow focuses taken by a majority of skeptics. Skeptics should be going over government documents, like the Lisbon Treaty, Patriot Act, etc. and helping to expose the bs and helping their fellow countrymen/women understand what is going on. It is not enough just to go after 9-11 truthers. In fact, I would go as far as to say most skeptics should ignore them, for there are enough who will address them, and focus instead on holding the government to account over the inconsistencies and sidestepping that the US government has done about the topic and help expose the real truth that is being hidden by political double-speak and legislative wording. Such can be applied to other areas that skeptics love or loath to tread. How do you make skepticism sexy, marketable, and truly successful? You make its output practical, progressive, and productive to the wider world.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Newsweek Questionable Cover Choice
So, while I am always dubious of conspiracy claims, as a Communication student, akin to a journalist student but in a much broader sense, this is more in line with reality than many people, including skeptics, realize or like to admit. While I do not know the specifics of this example, I will say I question why this apparent choice was made. Now, is this same article in the US version? Maybe. (I would hope so.) Whether this is the "evil" US government trying to keep its people ignorant, or a business choice by Newsweek to keep its profits up, it is a disturbing trend that should be openly discussed... if you can get enough Americans interested. It has been my experience during class that the exploitative nature of capitalism in America is sickening yet the one thing more so is what sometimes appears as the apparent complacency of the American public. That is to say, Americans would rather keep read the human interest story than the more dire implications of the failed handling of the Afghanistan war. How very sad indeed...
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Zicam maker pulls products, but affirms safety
"Upset with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Zicam maker Matrixx Initiatives Inc. has withdrawn two of its cold remedy nasal products even though company officials maintain the products are safe.
The FDA said it received more than 130 complaints from consumers saying they have lost their sense of smell after using the products.
[...]
William Hemelt, acting president and chief operating officer of Matrixx, said the FDA action was taken without reviewing research he would have been more than willing to provide.
“We think the science does not support this allegation at all,” he said. “Quite honestly, we would not be selling the product if we thought it was unsafe.”
Zicam products use a homeopathic remedy called Zincum Gluconicum 2x, which means they require FDA approval.
[...]
Brett Berty, a senior recall strategist at Stericycle Inc. in Lake Forest, Ill., is coming to Phoenix this week to meet with Matrixx officials to see if he can help the company with damage control.
Usually, he said, companies will voluntarily recall a product before the FDA gets involved. That’s not how it happened with Matrixx. The FDA stepped in and warned Matrixx that it had received more than 130 consumer complaints and that the company needed to stop marketing the product until it can put a warning label on its packaging that it could cause anosmia.
[...]
When the FDA sent the warning letter to Matrixx and advised consumers not to use certain Zicam cold remedies, on June 16, Matrixx’s stock plummeted 70 percent to $5.78 a share. It bounced up a bit to $6.13 a day later, but nowhere near its 52-week high of $19.74, near its trading point before the FDA sent the warning letter.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Matrixx reported $13.8 million in net income on $112 million in net sales, up from $10.4 million in net income on $101 million in net sales a year ago.
Hemelt said he will be meeting with FDA regulators to discuss the issue. He also scheduled a conference call with investors.
The FDA advises against using:
Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel
Zicam Cold Remedy Gel Swabs
Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs-Kid Size"
The FDA said it received more than 130 complaints from consumers saying they have lost their sense of smell after using the products.
[...]
William Hemelt, acting president and chief operating officer of Matrixx, said the FDA action was taken without reviewing research he would have been more than willing to provide.
“We think the science does not support this allegation at all,” he said. “Quite honestly, we would not be selling the product if we thought it was unsafe.”
Zicam products use a homeopathic remedy called Zincum Gluconicum 2x, which means they require FDA approval.
[...]
Brett Berty, a senior recall strategist at Stericycle Inc. in Lake Forest, Ill., is coming to Phoenix this week to meet with Matrixx officials to see if he can help the company with damage control.
Usually, he said, companies will voluntarily recall a product before the FDA gets involved. That’s not how it happened with Matrixx. The FDA stepped in and warned Matrixx that it had received more than 130 consumer complaints and that the company needed to stop marketing the product until it can put a warning label on its packaging that it could cause anosmia.
[...]
When the FDA sent the warning letter to Matrixx and advised consumers not to use certain Zicam cold remedies, on June 16, Matrixx’s stock plummeted 70 percent to $5.78 a share. It bounced up a bit to $6.13 a day later, but nowhere near its 52-week high of $19.74, near its trading point before the FDA sent the warning letter.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Matrixx reported $13.8 million in net income on $112 million in net sales, up from $10.4 million in net income on $101 million in net sales a year ago.
Hemelt said he will be meeting with FDA regulators to discuss the issue. He also scheduled a conference call with investors.
The FDA advises against using:
Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel
Zicam Cold Remedy Gel Swabs
Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs-Kid Size"
Zicam maker pulls products, but affirms safety
Phoenix Business Journal - by Angela Gonzales
Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 2:49pm MST | Modified: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 5:33am
---
Well, besides the fact that Zicam is not homeopathic because it has an active ingredient (So why hasn't ANYONE tried suing them over false advertisement/mislabeling/misleading labels/etc.!?), this goes to show you that such a mentality that either exploits to tries to ascribe their products to homeopathy are not to be trusted. Granted, legitimate drugs have the same issue and the damage control the parent company is doing is not uncommon or unexpected. Still, since the general public often fails or cannot distinguish between science and bullshit, I can only hope this goes to showing the "dangers" of the practice; insomuch as it is not a perfect wonder-alternative. Maybe a good dose of "reality" will help towards the eradication of this bile. Likely not the most skeptical or scientifically valid stance on the matter but I hope you are smart enough to get what I mean.
Atheism + Utilitarian = Vegan Conspiracy? [EDIT]
Reasonable Doubts: Episode 43 Stewards of this Earth
So while the rest of the show I agreed with as usual, the whole Atheism + Utilitarianism = Vegan/Vegetarianism thing just baffles me. Now granted when it was explained in the episode it made slightly more sense but I still call bullshit on it as the only logical conclusion. Some of you (all 0 of my readers) might question why I should case as I label myself agnostic. Well, others says agnostic is a descriptor rather than a stance/belief; I say you can doubt the existence of any divinity and lean in an atheistic direction without being an atheist. Honestly, it is the usual fence-sitter accusation that I find more childish than productive or meaningful; but I digress. Back to the topic at hand, I can now see why some promote the idea of a Vegan Conspiracy Theory. I'm gonna post my reaction of their episode blog post then repost it here. I honestly hope they follow up this notion with some more in-depth explanation. It is the only thing that I have ever heard from these guy or any other skeptical person that made me cock my head an say, "What the fuck!?" Here is my responce:
I certainly hope we get a follow-up podcast, even if it is a 10min blip explaining this idea of Atheism + Utilitarianism = Vegan/Vegetarianism. I will say this upfront: if eating meat is indeed my only sacred calf, then I'm doing well; but I digress.
Yes, the current system of meat production is unacceptable. However, such flaws are not necessarily grounds for abandoning meat as a diet staple. I will be the first to admit agricultural and livestock farming needs reform. This said, the current state of the meat industry is not going to change by merely altering one's diet. This is sidestepping the issue rather than addressing it. While I can applaud and/or understand the desire to move towards rabbit food the reasons listed during the show appear lacking. Personal choice is just that so I don't have beef (bad pun!) with this though I do hold reservations about this is the apparently logical conclusion that a rationally-minded Utilitarian skeptic should come to (or maybe I’m horribly misinterpreting the podcast).
What should happen: everyone demand drastic improvement towards the treatment of livestock. Would this mean a reduction in the quality and quantity? Yes; but well worth it. If I am going to use an animal for food, the least I can do is give it a good life in the meantime and kill it with as little pain as possible. Even if it were a wild animal, I would still demand such. If someone is going to use me for food (i.e. vampires, cannibals, zombies, etc.), besides warning them of the health risks of such an unhealthy meal, all I want is to go out peacefully and in a good mood. Once dead, I'm worm-food anyway.
Shortages from such a radical change would be great and likely economically painful. How then do we feed such a large growing world population? Well, firstly we need to stop that growth and downside our numbers. This aside, a redistribution of overall omnivorous diets worldwide might help to ease the demand of meats, which is Utilitarian in principle. Those on the extremes, vegans would not affect the balance of the system. Supplements of nuts and other protein sources would supplement the rationed meats. The more Utilitarian approach of meat production would spill over to agricultural, which further increased efficiency to feed the (decreasing) population.
Now, realistically, such efforts are improbable, if not impossible. So where does that leave me? I've watch the slaughterhouse videos and while my (liberal) heart bleeds in compassion it also burns in anger, I still crave my meat and enjoy every immoral unethical hypocritical bite. I can also apply this to most things I stuff into my mouth. As 2 Gryphon said (paraphrased), 'There's nothing more exciting than a psychotic clown selling me cow death for my face!' If we really wanted to be Utilitarian about things, humanely (boy, is that a deceptive term) terminating a sizable chuck of itself would be a very good way to assure the most benefit for the most living things, human or otherwise. If we are to do this, I suggest not letting such good stock go to waste.
Speaking of which, at least when one eats meat it is not still alive. True, while leafs off a lettuce are like fingers removed from a body, eating a carrot is a bit more macabre. Though one can argue plants cannot feel pain, I find it morbid that Vegans enjoy eating fresh plants that are still alive at the time. While I partake in this grisly buffet, it is ironic for primary plant eaters who promote non-meat diets as more ethical. For my part, Atheism + Utilitarianism = moderation & respect. Even if we were to be lords of our domain, why should we be pricks about it? Just because you're a king doesn't mean you have to be a dictator or authoritarian. Conversely, you can be atheistic and utilitarian without forgoing meat or giving up on a sadistic industry. I'm not sure if this is a rant, rebuke, lampoon, or something more constructive. Feel free (anyone) to pick out the flaws in this diatribe, as it will help me to better articulate my argument and sense of humor.
[EDIT] I changed all the misused "Unitarianism" to "Utilitarianism". Fuck!
So while the rest of the show I agreed with as usual, the whole Atheism + Utilitarianism = Vegan/Vegetarianism thing just baffles me. Now granted when it was explained in the episode it made slightly more sense but I still call bullshit on it as the only logical conclusion. Some of you (all 0 of my readers) might question why I should case as I label myself agnostic. Well, others says agnostic is a descriptor rather than a stance/belief; I say you can doubt the existence of any divinity and lean in an atheistic direction without being an atheist. Honestly, it is the usual fence-sitter accusation that I find more childish than productive or meaningful; but I digress. Back to the topic at hand, I can now see why some promote the idea of a Vegan Conspiracy Theory. I'm gonna post my reaction of their episode blog post then repost it here. I honestly hope they follow up this notion with some more in-depth explanation. It is the only thing that I have ever heard from these guy or any other skeptical person that made me cock my head an say, "What the fuck!?" Here is my responce:
I certainly hope we get a follow-up podcast, even if it is a 10min blip explaining this idea of Atheism + Utilitarianism = Vegan/Vegetarianism. I will say this upfront: if eating meat is indeed my only sacred calf, then I'm doing well; but I digress.
Yes, the current system of meat production is unacceptable. However, such flaws are not necessarily grounds for abandoning meat as a diet staple. I will be the first to admit agricultural and livestock farming needs reform. This said, the current state of the meat industry is not going to change by merely altering one's diet. This is sidestepping the issue rather than addressing it. While I can applaud and/or understand the desire to move towards rabbit food the reasons listed during the show appear lacking. Personal choice is just that so I don't have beef (bad pun!) with this though I do hold reservations about this is the apparently logical conclusion that a rationally-minded Utilitarian skeptic should come to (or maybe I’m horribly misinterpreting the podcast).
What should happen: everyone demand drastic improvement towards the treatment of livestock. Would this mean a reduction in the quality and quantity? Yes; but well worth it. If I am going to use an animal for food, the least I can do is give it a good life in the meantime and kill it with as little pain as possible. Even if it were a wild animal, I would still demand such. If someone is going to use me for food (i.e. vampires, cannibals, zombies, etc.), besides warning them of the health risks of such an unhealthy meal, all I want is to go out peacefully and in a good mood. Once dead, I'm worm-food anyway.
Shortages from such a radical change would be great and likely economically painful. How then do we feed such a large growing world population? Well, firstly we need to stop that growth and downside our numbers. This aside, a redistribution of overall omnivorous diets worldwide might help to ease the demand of meats, which is Utilitarian in principle. Those on the extremes, vegans would not affect the balance of the system. Supplements of nuts and other protein sources would supplement the rationed meats. The more Utilitarian approach of meat production would spill over to agricultural, which further increased efficiency to feed the (decreasing) population.
Now, realistically, such efforts are improbable, if not impossible. So where does that leave me? I've watch the slaughterhouse videos and while my (liberal) heart bleeds in compassion it also burns in anger, I still crave my meat and enjoy every immoral unethical hypocritical bite. I can also apply this to most things I stuff into my mouth. As 2 Gryphon said (paraphrased), 'There's nothing more exciting than a psychotic clown selling me cow death for my face!' If we really wanted to be Utilitarian about things, humanely (boy, is that a deceptive term) terminating a sizable chuck of itself would be a very good way to assure the most benefit for the most living things, human or otherwise. If we are to do this, I suggest not letting such good stock go to waste.
Speaking of which, at least when one eats meat it is not still alive. True, while leafs off a lettuce are like fingers removed from a body, eating a carrot is a bit more macabre. Though one can argue plants cannot feel pain, I find it morbid that Vegans enjoy eating fresh plants that are still alive at the time. While I partake in this grisly buffet, it is ironic for primary plant eaters who promote non-meat diets as more ethical. For my part, Atheism + Utilitarianism = moderation & respect. Even if we were to be lords of our domain, why should we be pricks about it? Just because you're a king doesn't mean you have to be a dictator or authoritarian. Conversely, you can be atheistic and utilitarian without forgoing meat or giving up on a sadistic industry. I'm not sure if this is a rant, rebuke, lampoon, or something more constructive. Feel free (anyone) to pick out the flaws in this diatribe, as it will help me to better articulate my argument and sense of humor.
[EDIT] I changed all the misused "Unitarianism" to "Utilitarianism". Fuck!
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Military Hush-Up: Incoming Space Rocks Now Classified
"For 15 years, scientists have benefited from data gleaned by U.S. classified satellites of natural fireball events in Earth's atmosphere – but no longer.
A recent U.S. military policy decision now explicitly states that observations by hush-hush government spacecraft of incoming bolides and fireballs are classified secret and are not to be released, SPACE.com has learned.
The satellites' main objectives include detecting nuclear bomb tests, and their characterizations of asteroids and lesser meteoroids as they crash through the atmosphere has been a byproduct data bonanza for scientists.
The upshot: Space rocks that explode in the atmosphere are now classified.
"It's baffling to us why this would suddenly change," said one scientist familiar with the work. "It's unfortunate because there was this great synergy...a very good cooperative arrangement. Systems were put into dual-use mode where a lot of science was getting done that couldn't be done any other way. It's a regrettable change in policy."
Scientists say not only will research into the threat from space be hampered, but public understanding of sometimes dramatic sky explosions will be diminished, perhaps leading to hype and fear of the unknown."
Military Hush-Up: Incoming Space Rocks Now Classified
By Leonard David, SPACE.com's Space Insider Columnist
posted: 10 June 2009 05:35 pm ET
A recent U.S. military policy decision now explicitly states that observations by hush-hush government spacecraft of incoming bolides and fireballs are classified secret and are not to be released, SPACE.com has learned.
The satellites' main objectives include detecting nuclear bomb tests, and their characterizations of asteroids and lesser meteoroids as they crash through the atmosphere has been a byproduct data bonanza for scientists.
The upshot: Space rocks that explode in the atmosphere are now classified.
"It's baffling to us why this would suddenly change," said one scientist familiar with the work. "It's unfortunate because there was this great synergy...a very good cooperative arrangement. Systems were put into dual-use mode where a lot of science was getting done that couldn't be done any other way. It's a regrettable change in policy."
Scientists say not only will research into the threat from space be hampered, but public understanding of sometimes dramatic sky explosions will be diminished, perhaps leading to hype and fear of the unknown."
Military Hush-Up: Incoming Space Rocks Now Classified
By Leonard David, SPACE.com's Space Insider Columnist
posted: 10 June 2009 05:35 pm ET
Great, now all the government conspiracy proponents will have more in their arsenal. Anyway, well, this sucks! I often wonder who is more paranoid, the "conspiracy theorists" or the government. Granted, both should be mindful of things but not to the point of paralysis. Another loss for science and humanity in general...
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
"Nebraska Loess Man" Original Research
So a while back I did some real investigative work. Yes, it was online but I was able to search out primary sources to resolve (in my opinion) a question about certain skull finds back in 1906. Not to be confused with the Nebraska Man, which is a fabrication that used pig's teeth to suggest early humans or proto-humans or ancestors to humans lived in North America (and certainly before the arrival of Clover people or traditional Native Americans). You can find my original postings on the MABRC forum (though I am unsure with the current politics if non-members can even read them): Primitive Man in the U.S. [MABRC forums down due to hacking issues. Will post links once forums are properly restored.].
Some cryptozoologists have cited this page -Some Fossils- for interesting clues to possible homo ancestors in North America. A drawing of one skull found on the site is labeled as "A Kow Swamp skull" (seen at the top of the page). The site relays information an article in the journal Science (yes, THAT magazine) back in 1906 about skull discoveries in Nebraska ["Discovery of an early type of man in Nebraska" Barbour, E.H., and Ward, H.B.; Science, 24:628, 1906]. After emphasizing sever key passages, the page author give this commentary: "Comments : the two obviously different populations were burried in the same structure, most probably by the same people (presumably the higher, "modern" one) at, roughly, the same period. The "lower people" could be slaves or any kind of associates of the "higher people"." The original source the page cites by Barbour, E.H., and Ward, H.B. I found though my online scholarly access of UWT. Sadly, that bars me from making the content accessible to the public but my point was merely to verify the cited source, which I did and the text is "word for word" with the magazine article. Another relating article I did find through public means is NEBRASKA "LOESS MAN" by B. Shimek (Geological Society of America). It give a more updated and detail account of the skull finds than the Science article and photos of the skull(s) in question to boot!
Now, originally, at this point I got confused with the "Nebraska Man" mentioned above and after LSurf (MABRC Organizational Field Researcher, Project Marker Team Member) pointed out to me the (now) obvious error is my original conclusion, I furthered my investigation. (Praise be to Google Book!) This is when I made the distinction between the 1917 "Nebraska Man" (pig's teeth hoax) and the 1906 "Nebraska Loess Man" skulls. Another article I could only access via my UWT account was ON THE TRACK of PRIMITIVE MAN AND HIS ANCESTOR; Prehistoric Skulls Found in Nebraska Prove Antiquity of Race in America Berlin Academy of Science Sends Expedition to Java to Search for Missing Link [New York Times December 23, 1906, Sunday]. More article citing the 1906 article can be found here: Google Book Search. The following are my finding relating to the 1906 skulls:
LSurf still thought there was room for doubt, citing a drawn overlay of the skull with a human skull photo. In response, I posted this:
LSurf did not respond.
There was another post that confused the two Nebraska finds and I quickly pounced on with the same (more concise) argument: nebraskaman skull depiction [MABRC forums down due to hacking issues. Will post links once forums are properly restored.]. Again, the discussion stopped there once I was able to link to the list forum thread. So that is one of my contribution to skepticism, science, the MABRC, and cryptozoology. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Some cryptozoologists have cited this page -Some Fossils- for interesting clues to possible homo ancestors in North America. A drawing of one skull found on the site is labeled as "A Kow Swamp skull" (seen at the top of the page). The site relays information an article in the journal Science (yes, THAT magazine) back in 1906 about skull discoveries in Nebraska ["Discovery of an early type of man in Nebraska" Barbour, E.H., and Ward, H.B.; Science, 24:628, 1906]. After emphasizing sever key passages, the page author give this commentary: "Comments : the two obviously different populations were burried in the same structure, most probably by the same people (presumably the higher, "modern" one) at, roughly, the same period. The "lower people" could be slaves or any kind of associates of the "higher people"." The original source the page cites by Barbour, E.H., and Ward, H.B. I found though my online scholarly access of UWT. Sadly, that bars me from making the content accessible to the public but my point was merely to verify the cited source, which I did and the text is "word for word" with the magazine article. Another relating article I did find through public means is NEBRASKA "LOESS MAN" by B. Shimek (Geological Society of America). It give a more updated and detail account of the skull finds than the Science article and photos of the skull(s) in question to boot!
Now, originally, at this point I got confused with the "Nebraska Man" mentioned above and after LSurf (MABRC Organizational Field Researcher, Project Marker Team Member) pointed out to me the (now) obvious error is my original conclusion, I furthered my investigation. (Praise be to Google Book!) This is when I made the distinction between the 1917 "Nebraska Man" (pig's teeth hoax) and the 1906 "Nebraska Loess Man" skulls. Another article I could only access via my UWT account was ON THE TRACK of PRIMITIVE MAN AND HIS ANCESTOR; Prehistoric Skulls Found in Nebraska Prove Antiquity of Race in America Berlin Academy of Science Sends Expedition to Java to Search for Missing Link [New York Times December 23, 1906, Sunday]. More article citing the 1906 article can be found here: Google Book Search. The following are my finding relating to the 1906 skulls:
"I have concluded that the Nebraska "Loess Man" was indeed a real find and the only thing truly hampering an age range was the lack of stratification feature of the loess mounts (loess by its very definition and nature is un-stratified). To find more information, just type into a Google search "loess man" (include the quotations while searching for the best results). However, in addition to the age of the burial being questioned, which if further hampered by the possibility of a reburial many many decades or more later, there was a growing notion that the bones were very much human:
The bones of the "loess" man discovered two years ago in the mounds of Nebraska offer "no insurmountable obstacle" to the assumption that all are comparatively recent. Most of these American skeletons resemble closely the bones of the modern Indian. The higher primates (gorillas and chimpanzees) which are considered to have differentiated from the ancestors of man are, or at least have not been found among us, but have existed only in Asia Africa and Europe. Here should be a source of pride to the native American, that his primitive ancestry was indigenously human and not at all Simian.
"The Earliest Man", Medical Times. January-December 1909
This is further supported by another article in 1915:
In cooperation with the University of Nebraska, Poynter studied the remains of over one hundred skulls taken from graves on the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River near Omaha. Poynter’s interests lie in studying the entire group of a "lower ordered" ancient type of man. Specifically, Poynter calls this group the Nebraska Loess Man...
...Poynter suggests, there is no need to consider these as separate races or to assign them to any great civilization of the past. He does suggest, however, that the entire cranium collects are from different tribes. Using ‘craniometric’ standards Poynter draws the conclusion that these groups have a close relationship with other peoples of America.
Poynter, C. W. M. A Study of Nebraska Crania. American Anthropologist 1915 Vol. 17:509-524. @ publicanthropology.org
ROBERT WASYLYK York University (Naomi Adelson)
You can read the full texts (via the links) to get a fuller picture of how these conclusions were made. From what I have read, it seems the conclusions of the "loess man" was modern human. Taking a look at the photos of the skill(s) in the "Preliminary Report on the Primitive Man of Nebraska" report, I can see how both conclusions could have been reached. I find these two (quoted) articles above as persuasive. Thus, I would reasonably conclude that the Nebraska "Loess Man" finds are indeed that of modern humans."
The bones of the "loess" man discovered two years ago in the mounds of Nebraska offer "no insurmountable obstacle" to the assumption that all are comparatively recent. Most of these American skeletons resemble closely the bones of the modern Indian. The higher primates (gorillas and chimpanzees) which are considered to have differentiated from the ancestors of man are, or at least have not been found among us, but have existed only in Asia Africa and Europe. Here should be a source of pride to the native American, that his primitive ancestry was indigenously human and not at all Simian.
"The Earliest Man", Medical Times. January-December 1909
This is further supported by another article in 1915:
In cooperation with the University of Nebraska, Poynter studied the remains of over one hundred skulls taken from graves on the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River near Omaha. Poynter’s interests lie in studying the entire group of a "lower ordered" ancient type of man. Specifically, Poynter calls this group the Nebraska Loess Man...
...Poynter suggests, there is no need to consider these as separate races or to assign them to any great civilization of the past. He does suggest, however, that the entire cranium collects are from different tribes. Using ‘craniometric’ standards Poynter draws the conclusion that these groups have a close relationship with other peoples of America.
Poynter, C. W. M. A Study of Nebraska Crania. American Anthropologist 1915 Vol. 17:509-524. @ publicanthropology.org
ROBERT WASYLYK York University (Naomi Adelson)
You can read the full texts (via the links) to get a fuller picture of how these conclusions were made. From what I have read, it seems the conclusions of the "loess man" was modern human. Taking a look at the photos of the skill(s) in the "Preliminary Report on the Primitive Man of Nebraska" report, I can see how both conclusions could have been reached. I find these two (quoted) articles above as persuasive. Thus, I would reasonably conclude that the Nebraska "Loess Man" finds are indeed that of modern humans."
LSurf still thought there was room for doubt, citing a drawn overlay of the skull with a human skull photo. In response, I posted this:
"True; that's why I said "Thus, I would reasonably conclude that the Nebraska "Loess Man" finds are indeed that of modern humans." Even the 1909 article uses the phrase "no insurmountable obstacle". This said, I take more stock in the photos provided of the skulls in the follow-up article than the drawings at the website, which I have not found a source for. It would have been much easier to argue the case if the photos had the complete skull face rather than just the cranial dome. Still, the photos do not show anything too abnormal. However, the 1915 article seems to account for this abnormal skull dimensions when taken into context with other North American skulls,
"In cooperation with the University of Nebraska, Poynter studied the remains of over one hundred skulls taken from graves on the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River near Omaha. Poynter’s interests lie in studying the entire group of a "lower ordered" ancient type of man. Specifically, Poynter calls this group the Nebraska Loess Man. Careful analysis of the skulls allows Poynter to draw conclusions about these ancient human beings. However, blatant disregard for the cultural and social significance of the descendants of these borrowed bones is not an issue. [...] The first group is the Wallace Mound Group; Poynter notes the artificial deformation in the form of occipital flattening. This deformation is similar in most of the skulls in the study. Of the twenty-six skulls studied, all of them had accentuated "brachycephaly" relating to the length of the head. [...] Forty-two members of the [second] group were measured and compared. Poynter notes that the ‘sutures’ are complex, but not as intricate as in whites. Further analysis of this group shows they have an inter-nasal articulation that is arched as in the Roman-type nose, summarizing that this group of crania is distinctly Indian in character. [...] The third group is the Fort Lisa group. The most characteristic feature of the group is their long narrow shape, indicating that this group might have had premature synotosis (the formation of the skull bones). Poynter also notes that this group resembles the Australian aborigines. [...] This [fourth] group was badly preserved and was difficult to remove. Poynter notes that this group of skulls exhibited crania that was characterized by an inferior frontal development and, therefore, "may be considered as belonging to a low order racially". All the groups studied showed similar features. Therefore, Poynter suggests, there is no need to consider these as separate races or to assign them to any great civilization of the past. He does suggest, however, that the entire cranium collects are from different tribes. Using ‘craniometric’ standards Poynter draws the conclusion that these groups have a close relationship with other peoples of America."
Frankly, while I still admit room for "doubt", it seems more 'grasping for straws' trying to keep this example open to the Bigfoot angle."
"In cooperation with the University of Nebraska, Poynter studied the remains of over one hundred skulls taken from graves on the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River near Omaha. Poynter’s interests lie in studying the entire group of a "lower ordered" ancient type of man. Specifically, Poynter calls this group the Nebraska Loess Man. Careful analysis of the skulls allows Poynter to draw conclusions about these ancient human beings. However, blatant disregard for the cultural and social significance of the descendants of these borrowed bones is not an issue. [...] The first group is the Wallace Mound Group; Poynter notes the artificial deformation in the form of occipital flattening. This deformation is similar in most of the skulls in the study. Of the twenty-six skulls studied, all of them had accentuated "brachycephaly" relating to the length of the head. [...] Forty-two members of the [second] group were measured and compared. Poynter notes that the ‘sutures’ are complex, but not as intricate as in whites. Further analysis of this group shows they have an inter-nasal articulation that is arched as in the Roman-type nose, summarizing that this group of crania is distinctly Indian in character. [...] The third group is the Fort Lisa group. The most characteristic feature of the group is their long narrow shape, indicating that this group might have had premature synotosis (the formation of the skull bones). Poynter also notes that this group resembles the Australian aborigines. [...] This [fourth] group was badly preserved and was difficult to remove. Poynter notes that this group of skulls exhibited crania that was characterized by an inferior frontal development and, therefore, "may be considered as belonging to a low order racially". All the groups studied showed similar features. Therefore, Poynter suggests, there is no need to consider these as separate races or to assign them to any great civilization of the past. He does suggest, however, that the entire cranium collects are from different tribes. Using ‘craniometric’ standards Poynter draws the conclusion that these groups have a close relationship with other peoples of America."
Frankly, while I still admit room for "doubt", it seems more 'grasping for straws' trying to keep this example open to the Bigfoot angle."
LSurf did not respond.
There was another post that confused the two Nebraska finds and I quickly pounced on with the same (more concise) argument: nebraskaman skull depiction [MABRC forums down due to hacking issues. Will post links once forums are properly restored.]. Again, the discussion stopped there once I was able to link to the list forum thread. So that is one of my contribution to skepticism, science, the MABRC, and cryptozoology. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
