While at a conference for my job last year, I saw a small anti-vaccine protest in front of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. The protesters were there claiming that one of the components in vaccines, mercury thimerosal, causes autism, an assertion that has not been proven in countless scientific studies. What countless studies have proven is that vaccines have saved millions of lives and prevented life-debilitating disabilities, making immunization one of the most important public health discoveries in history.

There is a need to change perception of the safety of vaccines. The very ubiquity of vaccines cause people to take for granted the absence of deadly diseases like smallpox. Rejection of recommended vaccines may explain why there has been a resurgence of preventable diseases such as measles and whooping cough.

A recent article in the New York Times discussed why false information tends to have influence even when it has been shown to be false. Source amnesia causes humans to respond to false information as though it were true despite being shown evidence that counters that false claim. Source amnesia may bear part of the blame for the existing perception that vaccines cause autism.

Overcoming this particular false perception represents a tough social marketing challenge. You have a highly vocal and motivated minority actively trying to stop a positive intervention. Fear and misinformation has taken the place of rational discussion based on scientific evidence. How do you make one perceived risk (autism) seem less dangerous and/or less likely than the actual risk (death and disability)?

For more information about vaccines, visit Voices for Vaccines.

Hat tip to Nedra for the NYT article link via Twitter.

In all this talk of surge success, very little is being mentioned of the immense amount of cash being handed over to many of Iraq's violent tribes and militias - putting vast amounts of criminals on U.S. payroll to NOT reach for their automatic weapons and plant IEDs. You got it. We're monetarily bribing down the violence. And we'll likely continue to do so as we reduce troop numbers.

I'm not saying I oppose this strategy. Whatever works, right? But to continuously claim "The surge is a success" without acknowledging the effect of these payoffs is equivalent to presenting a facade to the American people. Of course, we should expect nothing less. How many lies were told to garner support for the war in the first place?

Yet we hear over and over that the surge's success has proven McCain right. I know at some point I should develop a callous to the lies, but it seems nearly impossible and we're all left with high blood pressure and anger over our leaders' inabilities to prioritize truth over popularity.

Finally, CNN offered an interview with terrorism expert Peter Bergen on 360 last night in which he said,

I actually think both the Democrats and the Republicans have been overemphasizing the surge. If it was just about the surge, the violence would be back up again because the surge is over. There are some underlying factors that are much more important in Iraq in my view.

One -- the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq, they basically scored a series of own goals by its Taliban-style tactics, producing this wave of revulsion against and amongst the Sunnis. Now we put up a 100,000 Sunni militia on the American payroll, people who used to be shooting at the United States who are now on our payroll.

We also see the Prime Minister Maliki, no one could say a good thing about him a year and a half ago in Washington. Turning out to be a somewhat effective leader going into Basra, taking out the Shia militias there, going into Sadr City, taking out the Shia militias there.

We've also seen the Iraqi army which, Anderson, is really much larger than the Afghan army and much more effective in a country which is smaller and with a smaller population.

So there were some underlying factors that actually suggest that long- term success in Iraq is plausible. It's possible the surge, of course, was one aspect of it. But to say that the surge caused all these changes is I think simply very simplistic essentially.

Also, Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films produced a video report entitled Uncovering the Truth Behind the Anbar Success Story showing Sunni leaders who had formerly been associated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and responsible for ethnic cleansing being paid off. In an interview with Katie Halper of Alternet.org last September, Rowley indicated,

There have been a lot of reports about the fact that the people who the U.S. is working with, the supposed "freedom fighters," the "counter-insurgents" are former insurgents. They were Iraqi al Qaeda before they started working with the Americans. That is troubling because if they were fighting the Americans once, they'll fight Americans again. And more troubling for the future of Iraq is the fact that many of the tribes that the U.S. is working with are war criminals who are directly responsible for ethnic cleansing and who are using American support to prepare for sectarian civil war. The U.S. is funding Sunni militias. They already funded the Shia militias. They're now funding all sides of this sectarian war.

Here's an NPR interview with British journalist Peter Cockburn discussing U.S. payments to Iraqi militiamen.

In an April 2008 report, The Christian Science Monitor stated,

He (Abu Abdullah of the Islamic Army of Iraq) also maintains that while the US has succeeded in driving a wedge between AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) and Sunnis in Anbar Province, many of the tribesmen there who are now on the American payroll are still aiding IAI and other insurgent groups.

Members of these US-backed militias now number almost 91,000 and are paid a total of $16 million a month in salaries by the US. They are often lauded by President Bush in his speeches on Iraq.

The US military now calls these Sunni militias "Sons of Iraq." Iraqis simply refer to all these groups as sahwas. But the Shiite-led government is resisting US pressure to fold these groups, especially the ones in Baghdad and Diyala provinces, into the Army and police. "Trust me, the sahwas are ultimately with the resistance, heart and mind," says Abu Abdullah.

There is no debating the fact that the drop in violence in Iraq is largely due in part to the payoffs - right or wrong - the U.S. is giving the militias. I am not squabbling with this strategy. I am merely raising my voice in protest of the campaign of misinformation of the surge's success by the president, McCain and now Obama.

We cannot judge our approval or disapproval of these candidate's ideas if they are not straightforward. I have little doubt the empty political rhetoric will continue, but at least those of us with a minute ability to apply research and information to our opinions and decision-making can help proliferate necessary evidence to support or refute the politicians' shameful mumbo-jumbo.

The cover of this week's issue of the New Yorker depicts Barack Obama in Arabic(ie: Muslim to most people) garb performing a "terrorist fist jab" with Michelle Obama, who is dressed like a Black Panther. Behind them, the US flag and a picture of Osama Bin Laden hangs over the fireplace. The New Yorker's defense of the cover is that it "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign."

His point is well seen, but nothing on the cover references the fear mongers. This lack of context means that the same people who have fallen for misinformation and scare tactics will think the New Yorker is verifying their point of view. I'm not saying the New Yorker shouldn't be able to publish this. Nor am I saying that the New Yorker has to be positive towards Obama. I'm simply saying that the New Yorker should be above reinforcing the fears of the right. I do assume that regular readers of the New Yorker would get the point. However, this cover will be seen by many who would never read the New Yorker due to how incendiary it is.

A magazine with the reputation of the New Yorker should act more responsibly.

Edit at 11:40 AM, July 15, 2008: I've been thinking more about it and it seems to me that the problem is simply in the execution. If, as an example, they had put the scene in a thought bubble coming from a scared stereotypical white man the satire would be clearer and it would be far more difficult for it to be misinterpreted. Of course, even if was done badly, The New Yorker has a right to say it which is something we should be happy about.

So what happened? Basically, the agreement signed in Japan was no more than a diplomatic feint on the part of G8 policy makers. It was designed to create the appearance of action and unity on the part of the Western powers while making the developing world accountable for the failure of this and future international agreements on climate change. The desired goal is to shift the pressure from the G8 to their new competitors in the G5, and by doing so, they can begin to loosen the economic burden of "green politics" at home.

The smoke-screening efforts of the G8 at this summit are a perfect illustration of the futility of continued capitalist policy making on environmental issues. The capitalist ideology is not compatible with environmental protection as it involves sacrifice for the good of all both now and in the future. Also, it is not strong enough to suffer the indignities of co-operation among every component of humanity without some motive for profit. There will never be a good time for the capitalist nations to pursue real effective climate change policies, there will never be a convenient time to sacrifice profit for the good of all. Material gain is the central tenant of their world view, not mutual effort for the good of all which will be required to secure effective policies and ensure that they are implemented effectively.

The G8 Summit in Japan should serve as a warning to the world and highlight the inability of industrialized nations to look beyond their own benefit and consider what is the best thing for humanity and the planet we inhabit. It is time to remove the capitalist ideology from the negotiating table and replace it with one that can see and implement the policies necessary to save humanity from its environmental mistakes. One that can unite all of humanity under a common banner for the sake of the common good and humanity's continued existence. Its time for a new way that stands for us all and can reflect and respond to the environmental realities of our time.

Tredinnick also said that "the Hinckley and Bosworth primary care trust, which is in my constituency and which will cover west Leicestershire, is seriously considering providing acupuncture for pain relief, and a qualified doctor in the constituency wants to use that treatment." Oh goody, one single doctor (albeit a qualified one, as our Chief Woo MP stresses) wants to use aupuncture. Is that instead of or as well as anaesthetic? I'm just asking, because a BBC2 documentary about alternative medicine [see here and particularly here for more] showed:

"a 21-year-old Shanghai factory worker undergoing open-heart surgery with only the needles to control her pain". It turns out that this was a sham. The patient was doped on opiates and local anaesthetics. The needles were merely cosmetic. Why were we not told?

The quote above is from Improbable Science and there's more on acupuncture here: acupuncture. So Tredinnick is trumpeting the fact that one doctor wants to use acupuncture? Improbable Science details scientific trials of acupuncture that show sham acupuncture has the same effect as the 'real thing' - while I'm sure there is a place for clinical experience, I don't think one doctor's opinion should be somehow assumed to override the evidence.

What else? "I have written on numerous occasions about the way in which homeopathic services especially have been cut as a result of the introduction of primary care trusts, and we should study the issue." No - we should celebrate a tiny victory in the struggle against the endarkenment. At least acupuncture may have some small effect by virtue of its ability to provoke transmitter release, there is a plausible mechanism by which it could work. Homeopathy works no better than placebo and we could not expect it to - the 'most potent' remedies contain no active ingredient. Not a molecule. There may be a place for placebo treatment if someone can figure out solutions to the ethical dilemmas posed by provision of ineffective medicines [in effect, to provide a placebo without lying to patients - see Improbable Science for more on the ethical dilemmas posed: here and Bad Science for more on placebo: here]. This is The Truth About Homeopathy.

Tredinnick's opening comments finished with this:

I saw the Under-Secretary of State for Health in Committee the other day and I told her that I was grateful to her for having agreed to talk to me, as treasurer of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine, with an industry expert and a couple of other colleagues the day before. However, I had to warn her that if the issue was not taken seriously, there were people-I did not use the term lightly, it just came out of my head-who were tooling up for war. She looked at me as if to say, "I don't like the sound of that, and I don't like the way in which it has been put across," but when our eyes met, she knew that I was sincere. I was speaking for the vast number of people who see a serious threat to their well-being. Under this European directive, about 160 nutrients, supplements, medical treatments-call them what we might-will be removed once and for all.

War? Really? That's a bit of an overreaction isn't it? And I think the claim that 160 nutrients, supplements, medical treatments would be removed once and for all may have been a tad disingenuous. The final directive 2002/46/EC, as published, stated that "specific rules concerning nutrients, other than vitamins and minerals, or other substances with a nutritional or physiological effect used as ingredients of food supplements should be laid down at a later stage, provided that adequate and appropriate scientific data about them become available" - and that until such time, member states could allow continued sale of these nutrients. The directive also had this: "the chemical substances used as sources of vitamins and minerals in the manufacture of food supplements should be safe and also be available to be used by the body. For this reason, a positive list of those substances should also be established", which seems reasonable to me. The directive stated that "in order to keep up with scientific and technological developments it is important to revise the lists promptly, when necessary". I don't really see how any of this equates to 160 nutrients being banned forever [perhaps a pre-publication draft stated that the EU were going to consign supplements to the same fate as bendy bananas? Oh, hang on - that was a myth too*] and I have certainly never been made aware of what the 160 refers to. Is there a list somewhere? Did anyone ever write down all the nutrients that would be 'banned' [i.e., allowed for sale - it's funny what words can come to mean isn't it?] and did the number come to 160? Did Tredinnick see this list? Did someone he knows from the supplements industry tell him it was 160 and he just believed them? I don't know, but in a few months time you will have a vague memory of reading this post and you may remember that 160 nutrients were banned by the EU - if I say something often enough, someone is bound to believe me and that is a danger with unfacts, counterknowledge and misinformation. MPs generally have always been (at least for as long as I can remember) offenders against the truth, it should surprise no-one that they are purveyors of misinformation when it comes to CAM - they tell far more serious lies about the terror threat and why they have to take away our hard-won civil liberties and take us to war to bomb America's latest enemies.

*In the style of the newsreader Martin Lewis, I will end with something on a lighter note as talking about politicians is making me depressed. I looked up bendy bananas and the EU and found this article: The EU Strikes Back!, which contained a beautiful quote:

there's a huge difference between a long, straight one from Costa Rica and a short, curvy one from Cyprus or the Canaries

I am five years old. And that quote is funny.

So, God bless the Bill of Rights!

In considering their ideology, they have offended the "word" of God.  As a young boy in Sunday School - what happened to that loving God who loved everyone?  Were those pictures of Jesus hugging random adorable children a lie? I hope not - those pictures were cute. According to this woman, people who are homosexuals and who died in 9/11 are evil... I find it hard to believe that all gays and all 2,974 died in 9/11 were all evil.  I'm sure some of those people weren't fantastic people, but no one deserves to die like that - and some of the nicest people I've met are gay or closeted - I have my suspicions!

I haven't picked up my bible since senior year of high school, but these people have inspired me to do some of my own research.  Of course the words, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." mean nothing... Of course the words, "Love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back."  Technically, those people at Westboro should be hugging the crap out of "fags" and giving them money!  

That pretty lady from Fox News was getting at this - Leviticus 19:18 "Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen.  You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  Go figure.  You know immediately following that it says "Do not put on a garment woven out of two different types of thread."  I wonder if she adheres to that... Would she adhere to this?- Deuteronomy 25:11-12 - "When two men are fighting and the wife of one intervenes to save her husband from the blows of his opponents, if she stretches out her hand and seizes the latter by his private parts (aka his nads), you shall chop off her hand without pity."  I can't speak to what she would do, but man, can you imagine that kind of bar brawl?!

The things I have learned from my bible study (today) are the following.

-Love everyone - even "fags".

-Lend money like there's no tomorrow - and anticipate no return! This means I'm writing a letter to WBC right now asking them to pay off my school loans for free because I asked them to and God told them to lend me the money.

-Don't be mixing your woven threads.  "Is that a cotton blend?! You're so going to hell."

-My wife is never to grab at genitals while I am wrestling with another man.  That is the exact opposite of a happy ending.

-The bible is more relevant now than ever.

Thanks Mrs. Phelps-Roper for teaching me the way through your craziness!

JJRC

The Retropolitan: Not yet! Two weeks.

Colsy: Ooooh. I'm gonna work on a post soon. With pictures.

Mr Jonathan Opinion: Batman's coming out?  I always suspected.

“Internet user captures the moment: Someone jumps from building in flames.” Source: UOL. Problem: This is the cheapest Paraguayan Photoshop job possible, recognizable as such with the naked eye. UOL ran it as gospel truth on the front page of its portal for hours before recognizing and regretting the error.

"If we continue down the current path, more and more of the news will consist of regurgitated press releases and wire copy,” Torves concludes.

Not to mention uncorroborated leaks from anonymous sources, which is just a variation on the same one-note samba.

This week, for example, Veja magazine creates a horrendous scandal over an alleged bribery scheme at the Rio de Janeiro state independent audit tribunal, the TCE-RJ.

Its source: the proverbial Brazilian "leaky police," whose cavalier handling of information developed by Swiss authorities in the Alstom case has reportedly led the latter to stop sharing information with Brazilian officials. See

• Leak Journalism Plagues Alstom Investigation in Brazil

The Veja story is in my translation queue -- I try to keep track of the "failed prognostication ratio" of various local news organizations as an aid to spending my content budget wisely -- but what is immediately notable is that it is based entirely on leaked documents from a police investigation, and lacks any account of how the leaked material came into the magazine's hands, or from whom.

Compare a similar story by CartaCapital this week, using information from a federal police investigation in Rondônia.

The accusations presented cite the full name, profession and residence of the witness in the case and the full name of the federal police officer she gave the statement to. See

• Character Assassination Veja-Style in the Diamond Fields of Rondônia?

The sourcing of the Veja story is handled in precisely the opposite way.

The absence of anonymous sourcing tends to correlate significantly with credibility, I tend to find. Over-reliance on it tends to correlate with the opposite of credibility. It is not a hard and fast rule, but a notable statistical trend, I think.

I can only find two sourcing statements in the entire Veja exposé, both on the order of "police say" or "police suspect."

That is to say, some member or other of the leaky police force says so, not the police as an institution or an authorized spokesperson.

The Brazilian federal police have taken a very firm position on the semantics of that sort of sourcing recently, insisting that leakers not authorized to speak to the press will be hunted down and ruthlessly scalped of their pensions. No news that this has occurred yet, however.

See also

• Nassif on Veja and the Leaky Police

The charges against the Rio audit board could be true or not, of course -- there are well documented cases of such things taking place here, but there are also cases of honest public servants being lynched in the pages of the yellow press -- or possibly dishonest onesbeing auto-da-fe'd for acts of dishonesty the did not actually commit. See, for example,

• Veja Só: Editorial Integrity at Brazil’s Grupo Abril

In any event, we should also recall that nothing has ever come of a similar, more recent Veja scandal story -- bribery of the elections tribunal of the federal district! -- and that the magazine seems to have never followed up on the story. See

• Brazil: Were Elections Judges Bribed?

I never read about any outcome in that case from any source, but then again, the Dickensian dead march to the beat of which Brazilian legal proceedings slouch toward Bethlehem to be stillborn may also be a factor.

In general, however, these sorts of stories are never followed up on. The purpose of this sort of story is to create an immediate sensation, generally targeted at a specific person or institution as as service to a third-party agenda, in exchange for some quid pro quo.

The comments collected by this reporter from Brazil's Comunique-se -- by telephone, presumably -- are echoed in a report issued by a committee of the House of Lords this week. Note the Lords:

The market pressures faced by news organisations have led many to scale back on investment in journalism and news gathering. Much of the news available on the internet, on the new television channels and elsewhere is repackaged from other sources.

I sometimes wonder whether these "market pressures" are not really just a phantom menace used as a thin rationale for hardcore union-busting.

At any rate, that is the theme of today's exercise in ham-fisted translation at the speed of two-fingered typing:

Desk-Bound Journalism

Reporting produced while sitting at a desk in the newsroom: clipping service or real journalism?

Marianna Senderowicz
Comunique-se (Brazil)
July 2008

Translation: C. Brayton
Boi Zebu Editorial Services

Called “deskbound journalism,” this type of reporting has gained ground mainly due to the ease of access to information provided by the Internet, which is constantly updated by news agencies and is a tempting source for those who have too little time or money for on-the-scene reporting.

Jornalismo de gabinete literary means "office journalism," "journalism done from the office". Compare the English expression, "phoning it in" (doing a half-assed job.) I have engaged in some creative translation here in rendering the phrase as "desk-bound journalism." Compare the English expressions "armchair general," "Monday morning quarterback," and the celebrated "pyjamas media." --Trans.

Though no hard data exist to demonstrate that this type of reporting is on the rise, the practice, while sparking controversy among journalism professionals, has found support in a corporate culture and a readership that demand more and more agility in the processing of news, driving a perceived demand for real-time coverage.

“To a certain degree this technique is influenced by the new technologies, but there is also an attempt by news organizations to cut costs”, says Fenaj director José Torves.

Sandra de Deus of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, a Ph.D. in Information and Communications and administrative director of the National Forum of Professors of Journalism (FNPJ), believes that basing news coverage on the information and impressions of third parties represents a serious threat to the quality of journalism. “You start to lose touch with events and sources. Your picture of reality is no longer faithful when it is constructed from biased accounts of events that you, the journalist, did not witness personally, but which you simply heard from someone else”, she says. In the case of radio news, the professor's specialty, the situation is even worse. “Nowadays the radio reporter will often simply read a news item straight off a Web site into the microphone, forgetting that radio depends more on immediacy and on-the-scene ambiance than any other medium.”

But obtaining facts from the Internet or by telephone does not necessarily lead to bad reporting. “Writing the story without leaving the newsroom has good points and bad points. Obviously, interviews are always better when conducted in person, but there is always a cost-benefit ratio to consider. And not all stories need to be reported on the scene”, points out Ana Estela de Sousa Pinto, a board member of the Brazilian Investigative Journalism Association (Abraji). In her view, however, when the reporting has direct observation as its principal focus, or when it involves conflicts, that is a different matter. “If an airliner crashes in the middle of the city, it makes no sense to report the story by telephone, you have to go and see for yourself. In the specific case of investigative reporting, such as, say, a case of embezzlement from the budget of a hospital, it is vital to go to the scene and see for yourself that the equipment that ought to have been purchased has not, in fact, been received”, she adds.

Reporters v. Editors

According to Fenaj, the number of Brazilian news outlets in 2008 should grow by 16% in 2008. In the case of online news portals, this growth increases the risk of error, to the extent that the same piece of information is capable of racing around the world in the blink of an eye, while the absence of deadlines tends to produce a certain euphoria about posting news as soon as it is received. Drawing on content from various sources, in various languages, Web journalism is is now practiced mainly by editors who simply copy edit and reproduce the material they receive. Guidelines exist, however, to reduce the risk of error in this type of news operation. “There are two factors to take into account in any news report: velocity and veracity”, says Cuca Fromer, director of Editorial Projects for the Terra portal. According to Fromer, there is constant pressure to respond quickly to breaking stories, but even so, all the facts must be checked first. “We get information from news wires, police band radio, and other sources, but we make it a matter of principle to corroborate all statements before publishing them.”

Fromer notes a recent episode in which one of Brazil's major news sites reported a supposed aviation disaster in São Paulo that was in fact nothing more than a fire in a mattress warehouse: “In that case, there was no fact-checking, just the automatic reposting of a news item from another news portal that had published the story. The result was that misinformation was published. But this is not how we instruct our copy desk to conduct itself.” Cuca says the race to be first to air with a story is a global phenomenon. “Everyone is connected and looking for a constant flow of information, which increases the chances that misinformation will circle the globe in just a handful of minutes. This scenario requires news organizations to publicly regret their errors and learn how to issue corrections as soon as the error is discovered.”

On that incident, see

• “GloboNews Shoots Down Airliner”

Progress?

Despite these concerns about the quality of Brazilian journalism, in some newsrooms, changes are already underway in the methods used to report stories. According to Marta Gleich, director of online news at the Grupo RBS, this trend, which has been reinforced by its general acceptance at a majority of Brazilian news organizations, is now being resisted. “At RBS, for example, we instituted an integrated newsroom for print and Internet, increasing the exchange of information and the production of content”, she relates.

According to Gleich, who has experience as reporter, editor, and editor in chief, the challenge of multimedia reporting has led more journalists to start covering events on the scene in order to provide the public with complete, reliable information. “You need videos, photos, audio interviews and other media in order to augment the story, and that sort of material you can only gather personally.”

On the moral hazards of "phone it in" participatory "citizen journalism," see

• Brazil: UOL Citizen Journalism Is Fake News

The RBS executive relates that her organization relies on news agencies for stories that take place outside of Rio Grande and Brazil. “We prioritize local news, and do not field any permanent correspondents, except in the federal capital, Brasília. When circumstances -- such an Olympic games, a natural catastrophe, elections or the like -- demand direct coverage, we dispatch journalists on special assignment for a fixed period.”

In the view of Torves, however, most news organizations in Brazil have not tumbled to the problem yet, and awareness needs to be raised at media companies in order to avoid the consolidation of this "copy editor" role at the expense of the "reporter" role. “The credibility of publications who offer more detailed reporting, corroborated on the scene or from primary sources, will be a determining factor in the decision to invest more in reporting”, he says. Sandra believes that social pressure could be decisive in bringing about the return of the beat reporter. “I hope and expect that daily journalism still has a future, and that citizens will demand that journalists be able to verify facts directly."

"If we continue down the current path, more and more of the news will consist of regurgitated press releases and wire copy,” Torves concludes.

Tja, for det første kommer 2. og 3. g'erne i store flokke af MÆND, som ikke har kvinder med, men som skal ind og duske små, lyshårede "dansker-ludere". Man ser jo ALDRIG en islamisk pige på diskotek, med mindre de er så vestligt indstillede, at de sandsynligvis på et tidspunkt "kommer til" at falde ud over en altan eller sådan noget. Iøvrigt kan de meget få unge islamiske kvinder, som forvilder sig ind på et diskotek, forvente at blive overfaldet af deres egne, fordi de går på diskotek, og endda uden heejab eller burqa.

Og da de aldrig selv har piger med, vil det naturligvis også skabe gnidninger, men det er jo det sædvanlige - muhamedanere bidrager aldrig til noget, men tager med den ene hånd og tager med den anden.

I øvrigt drikker de islamtroende sodavand (alkohol er jo strengt haram), og er derved mere en omkostning for værtshusholderne, som tjener deres levebrød ved at udskænke alkohol. Og selv om de drikker sodavand, opfører de sig alt for tit værre end selv de mest stang-stive danskere. (Hint: Speed og steroider er ikke nævnt i Koranen)

Nå, tilbage til billedet: De to nydelige unge mennesker ser grangiveligt latinamerikanske - og under alle omstændigheder vestligt sekulære ud. De ligner oven i købet nogle af mine gode venner. Der er så vidt jeg er orienteret ikke specielle problemer med katolikker på diskotekerne. Ren manipulation i bedste Tøger Engelbreth-stil.

Der skal »indføres en ordning, hvor det skal have konsekvenser for bevillingshavere, hvis de diskriminerer i nattelivet«, fremgår det af en rapport fra regeringen, der blev offentliggjort i dag.

Middel mod ekstremisme
Forlaget er led i at bekæmpe, at unge indvandrere radikaliseres og udvikler ekstremistiske holdninger, som regeringen har lovet i sit regeringsgrundlag. Rapporten indeholder i alt 41 nye og gamle initiativer.

Forslaget er altså lavet specielt med henblik på islam-troende. For ikke at "marginalisere" og "radikalisere" disse "stakler", skal restauratørerne nu trues på pengepungen til at lukke dem ind.

Det ville jo være dejligt, hvis et sådant tiltag virkede - så kunne vi bygge en masse diskoteker i Iraq og Afghanistan og trække vores tropper hjem med god samvittighed. Lande som Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Gypten, Libanon, De palæstinensiske Selstyreområder etc, kunne også godt - ud fra denne geniale betragtning - have brug for en massiv diskoteks-indsats. Der bare lige det problem, at diskoteks-musik (og visse steder musik i det hele taget - for ikke at tale om dans - fydaføjda) er lige så haram som alkohol i de islamiske lande.

Jeg er i langt de fleste tilfælde ganske overbevist om, at dørmændene ikke er racistiske (hvad så end det ord betyder for tiden - Dansk Sprognævn?), men derimod af erfaring kender deres lus på gangen. Hvis unge, sexfrustrerede hormonbomber fra Mellemøsten kunne finde ud af at styre sig, ville der jo ingen problemer være med at lukke dem ind. Hvor mange japanere, englændere, italienere, grækere, spanioler, amerikanere og latinoer har problemer med at komme ind på diskoteker? Det er der ikke lavet statistikker over, så vidt jeg er informeret. Ret mig endelig hvis jeg tager fejl. Men kæledæggerne fra Fredens Religion® skal selvfølgelig endnu en gang have særbehandling.

Men den vinkel er Tøger Seidenfaden og hans ideologiske mentor, satanisten Rune Engelbreth, selvfølgelig ikke interesseret i at få frem.

For at blive klogere på de problemer, der udspiller sig i nattelivet mellem dørmænd og diskoteksgæster fik Århus og Københavns Kommune i september 2007 udarbejdet en rapport, og den foreslog bl.a. videoovervågning.

Men den foreslog også mere kontroversielle tiltag, som er kendt fra udlandet. I Frankrig sender myndighederne f.eks. indvandrergæster på uanmeldt adgangskontrol på diskoteker og udsteder store bøder til indehaveren, hvis der forskelsbehandles.

Det er det, som kaldes "agent provocateur" - Dan Lynge i mindre målestok. Velbekomme.

Og i Sverige kræves der omvendt bevisbyrde, hvis en dørmand bliver anmeldt for diskrimination, så er det op til diskoteksindehaveren og dørmanden at bevise sin uskyld.

Wikipedia:

Normalt anses det for uetisk og i strid med menneskerettighederne at anvende omvendt bevisbyrde, idet det bør være op til anklagemyndigheden at bevise og sandsynliggøre at den anklagede er skyldig.

Maher Arar, a Canadian who accused U.S. authorities of illegally deporting him to Syria where he was tortured, lost a U.S. court appeal Monday, according to a report.

Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was stopped at a New York airport on his way home from vacation in September 2002. U.S. officials accused him of links to al-Qaeda and deported him to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured for months.

He claims those who sent him to Syria recklessly and knowingly intended to subject him to torture. Even before he was secretly whisked away to Syria, he was confined for 12 days in New York and alleges he had to endure cruel, inhumane and degrading conditions.

Arar had argued his constitutional rights were violated when he was confined without access to an attorney or the court system and then forcibly returned to Syria, where U.S. authorities had reason to believe he would be tortured.

But the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court decision, ruled Monday that Arar failed to establish that the federal court had jurisdiction to hear his complaint, Reuters reported.

"Arar has not adequately established federal subject matter jurisdiction over his request for a judgment declaring that defendants acted illegally by removing him to Syria so that Syrian authorities could interrogate him under torture," the news agency reports the ruling as saying.

Arar remains on a U.S. watch list and barred from entering the United States, despite being cleared of any terrorist ties by a Canadian inquiry.

Justice Dennis O'Connor led the public inquiry, and said misleading information provided by the RCMP "very likely" paved the way for U.S. officials to send Arar to Syria.

Last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology to Arar while announcing he will receive $12.5 million in compensation.

U.S. lawmakers made a public apology last October during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing convened to discuss his deportation.

Hvor svært kan det være? Lad SÅ befolkningerne stemme om, om vi vil have EU's sminkede lig af en "forfatning" påtvunget os, eller om danskerne er villige til at vedtage den censur-, forsvars-, monetær- og retspolitik som forsøges presset ned over hovedet på os.

Men det tør I ikke - og ville under ingen omstændigheder rette jer efter resultatet, som vi har set igen og igen. Via JP - læs hele artiklen.

De danske forbehold begrænser den danske indflydelse i EU. Ikke kun inden for euro-, forsvars- og retssamarbejdet, men også ved traktatforhandlinger, konkluderer længe ventet DIIS-rapport.

Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier, DIIS, præsenterede mandag en længe ventet rapport omkring de danske EU-forbehold. Rapporten konkluderer, at de danske forbehold omkring euro-, forsvars og retssamarbejdet går hårdt ud over samarbejdet i unionen.

"Prisen for at redde forbeholdene har ofte været, at man måtte opgive at kæmpe for andre danske prioriteter for traktaterne. Derudover betyder forbeholdene, at Danmark i dag vil have vanskeligere ved at varetage rådsformandskabet, idet Danmark ikke vil kunne føre forsædet i centrale råd," skriver DIIS i rapporten.

Mens EU-formandskabet i 2002 var en stor succes for Danmark, peger udenlandske kilder i rapporten på, at Danmarks kommende formandskab i 2012 vil blive en meget svær øvelse med forbeholdene intakt.

Morten Messerschmidt fra DF har følgende betragtninger i denne sag (Pressemeddelelse d. 30/6-2008):

- I kapitlet om euro’en er det interessant, at man på den økonomiske side kun forholder sig til situationer, hvor kronen kan komme under pres (p.83), mens man ikke diskuterer fordelene ved at kunne justere renten fleksibelt og uafhængigt. Og rapporten ignorerer totalt, at den slovenske finansminister for få måneder siden slog fast, at der slet ikke er nogen politisk indflydelse som medlem af euro’en, siger Morten Messerschmidt.

- På det retslige områder skinner det politiske virkeligt igennem. Det anerkendes, at Danmark har bevaret autonomi på udlændingepolitikken – men dernæst følger konklusionen, at Danmark grundlæggende er sat uden for indflydelse (p.222), fordi vi kopierer flere af EU´s love. Men ved at kopiere retsakter får Danmark jo en national selvstændighed, som ingen andre EU-lande har. Vi kan nemlig til enhver tid ændre reglerne igen – det kan de lande, der er bundet af EU, ikke. Men det ser rapporten helt bort fra, kritiserer Morten Messerschmidt.

- Også når det kommer til konklusionerne om forsvarsforbeholdet, synes rapporten at være rent bestillingsarbejde. Tankerne om en EU-hær skydes hen som en ren hypotese, og man overser, at eksempel Tysklands kansler Merkel med jævne mellemrum slår til lyd for tanken. Rapporten gør meget ud af forholdet til NATO og FN, men levner ikke plads til, at Danmark uvægerligt vil miste indflydelse, hvis særligt Frankrigs planer om, at EU skal optræde som en fælles enhed i NATO, går i opfyldelse, siger Morten Messerschmidt.

Lyrics and music for "The Lobbyist" is now available at The Middle Class Forum.

Concerning language James says:

An old and dear friend said of language and she mainly meant vocabulary is like play dough, it's meant to be played with.

How does Taoism approach human language?

Taoism and language:

Up until now, I've tip-toed around the fact that Taoist thought is so throughly intertwined with the nature and role of human language, simply because I can't envision a way of introducing it without explaining most of Taoism at once.

Previously, in discussing the Taoist approach to understanding reality, I've said: a Taoist favors experience over formal education, tries to decode hidden truths within human institutions, and eventually tries to stop learning and lose unessential knowledge.

Now that I have some Taoist posts under my belt, let me start the conversation on language by discussing the importance of learning the value of words, or perhaps more accurately, learning the limitations inherent in language. These limitations are most exquisitely summarized in this passage from the Zhuangzi:

There are some things that you can talk about, and some things that you appreciate with your heart. The more you talk, the further away you get from the meaning.

In another passage, the value of words is discussed:

When people think of learning the truth, they think of books. Books are only words and words, of course, have a value. But the value of words lies in the meaning behind them. This so-called meaning is but an effort to grasp at something and that something cannot really be expressed by words.

This is something that nearly every person on the planet understands deep down as true, though few belief systems say it. In fact, most religions prescribe more than just beliefs, but a set of rituals and human institutions, the value of which, like words, lies in the meaning behind them, not the actual institutions themselves.

Love and Tao:

Take "love" as an example. No matter how you try to define and describe it, no words can encompass it completely. A person understands love not through words, but by experiencing it. If you've never experienced love before, then no matter how detailed I am, no matter how wide my vocabulary, I'll never be able to pass on my understanding of love to you.

Love is more than any combination of words can describe. In fact, "love" is an arbitrary label given to an indescribable thing, so that people who've both experienced that indescribable thing can discuss it.

Within Taoism, the Tao itself is another such label for something that can't really be described with words. In fact, the very first lines of the Tao Te Ching state:

The Tao that can be told of
Is not the Absolute Tao;
The Names that can be given
Are not the Absolute Names.

I can say to you that the Tao is the underlying process of the universe, but even as I do I feel that I'm cheapening it, and I want to say more, even though I know that no matter how much I write, I won't be able to transmit to anyone my understanding of the Tao. Zhuangzi recognized the difficulty:

It is easy to know Tao, and difficult not to talk about it. To know and not to talk about it is to follow nature; to know and to talk about it is to follow man.

"Spiritual" vs. "Religious":

The running theme of Taoism is the recognition of a thing's primary and secondary parts, and valuing the primary over the secondary. With language, the words are secondary, the meaning primary. Human institutions and societal rules are secondary to the primary truths that they represent.

The focus of Jame's post is the debate between the meanings of the words "spiritual" and "religious" in a modern context:

In general use spiritual stands for something good, while religious stands for something bad. Usually the good spiritual is personal and the bad religious is institutional.

Through a Taoist lens, these definitions lead us to see "religious" as secondary, and "spiritual" as primary. This mapping is reinforced by the idea that actual understanding of a thing is personal, and therefore primary.

Though we may "religious" to secondary status, that doesn't mean it's useless. Despite their limitations, words can be used to point us in the right direction, as another passage from the Zhuangzi states:

A bait is used to catch fish. When you have gotten the fish, you can forget about the bait. A rabbit trap is used to catch rabbits. When a rabbit is caught, you can forget about the trap. Words are used to express meaning, when you understand the meaning, you can forget about the words.

The same goes for human institutions. Though many things cannot be explained completely with words, they can be at least partially encoded into our institutions. The problem is that since that knowledge can be only partially represented using words, relying on human institutions for passing on understanding carries risk.

That is why a Taoist favors experience over formal education, because our human institutions, despite their best efforts to pass on essential knowledge of this universe, are limited by the limitations of words, and so people risk mistaking the institution itself for its deeper meaning.

• Virtual Israel, as represented by Google Earth, is littered with orange dots, many of which claim to represent "Palestinian localities evacuated and destroyed after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war." Thus, Israel is depicted as a state born out of colonial conquest rather than the return of a people from exile. Each dot links to the "Palestine Remembered" site, where further information advancing this narrative can be obtained.

• Many of the claims staked out in Google Earth present misinformation, and sites known to be ruins in 1946 are claimed to be villages destroyed in 1948. Arab villages which still exist today are listed as sites of destruction. The Google Earth initiative is not only creating a virtual Palestine, it is creating a falsification of history.

• The concept of "replacement geography" replaces the historical connection of one people to the land with a connection between another people and the land. The inclusion of virtual Palestine, superimposed on Israel in the core layer of Google Earth, is an example of replacement geography advanced by technology.

• Those wishing to explore Israel in Google Earth are immediately taken to a politically motivated narrative unrelated to their quest. Google should remove the narrative and treat Israel as it treats every other country on the globe. The core layer of Google Earth should be ideology free and not serve as a platform for indoctrination or a campaign to wipe Israel off the virtual map.

Læs mere på Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 

From the Jewish point of view, if people cannot see what they are doing, then how can they know until it's too late? They assert that it is so much better not to go the "bloody revolution" route, when one can achieve the same results by a gradual fait accompli. With politicians such as Speaker of the House, Madame Pelosi, publicly pledging to tie America's future to the eternal benefit of the State of Israel (sic), Jewish leaders, here and abroad, have every reason to think that their "Agenda" is going along smoothly and beautifully. Now, to stop the few Americans speaking out boldly in small media outlets and on the internet is all that's needed to eliminate the threat of "sunshine and visual clarity."

To that end self-censorship is expected by academia and the media. Neither Harvard University "eggheads" nor The Washington Post  would consider violating this principle by speaking the FULL truth forthrightly. Hence, only small annoyances such as the Hoaxer Project Report must be attended to by "corrective" legislation. A Senator Joe Biden is usually available to sponsor such a work, although there are bold Jewish senators always ready to "step up" for their people. Let us, then, consider the first of the many documented examples of Jewish fraud.

"LAURIE A. RECHT, a legal secretary who had vigorously supported court-ordered desegregation in Yonkers, NY, reported receiving death threats over several months following a meeting where she had been booed by angry white families opposed to the plan. RECHT, who is Jewish, had become a media heroine for her courage and was awarded an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree by the College of New Rochelle. To catch the perpetrators, the F.B.I. had installed a TV camera outside her apartment and attached security equipment to her telephone line. The equipment showed that no threatening calls had been received, and the hidden camera recorded Ms. RECHT writing a threat on the wall next to her apartment. Ms. RECHT has been indicted on several federal charges as a result of her hoax."    [THE HOAXER PROJECT REPORT, Laird Wilcox, p.13]

I believe that it is worth noting how precipitously and unscholarly the College of New Rochelle rushed to present Ms. Recht with an award for her labors. Since educators today generally reflect freemasonry's influence, a "rush to judgment" typically characterizes their approach. If something is "politically correct," then they don't want to be sober and reserved in their approach. Let's "award" and party, NOW!

Let's have another of the seemingly innumerable instances of Jewish self-serving fraud, shall we?

"In San Francisco, talk-show host MORTON DOWNEY, JR., is 'assaulted' in an airport restroom. A swastika is marked on his face and patches of hair are torn from his scalp, supposedly by neo-nazi 'skinheads.' Later that day he appears on TV with a much larger swastika painted on his face than was there when he first reported the incident, and related his shocking account of bigotry and racism. Airport security officers by the door reported no unusual traffic in or out of the restroom, and individuals in the restroom denied that any such incident took place. Although DOWNEY refused to back down, the incident is reported as a fabrication and a hoax by police. Later, Downey said he was 'drunk' and didn't even remember the incident."   [supra]

You can easily imagine that Mr. Downey might figure that such an event would hype his ratings for a while. That would tend to keep him employed. Further, all Jews are aware that there are orgainizations within Jewry that are always scanning for such events to promote as "anti-semitism." Hence, Mr. Downey could well expect to gain worldwide exposure, as Jewish influenced media would certainly feature the story for days on end, The F.B.I. would be called on to confirm a rising tide of anti-semitism. That, too, would be bruited about the media for days. It's a "win-win" situation for Jews. They have become masters of this game.

Let's hear of another incident, shall we?

"A series of fires in Hartford, CT, frightened the Jewish community and evoked media comparisons with the 'Night Of Broken Glass' when Nazis terrorized Jews in pre-World War II Germany. The fires occurred at Young Israel Synagogue, Emmanuel Synagogue, the home of RABBI SOLOMAN KRUPKA, and at the home of State Representative JOAN KEMLER, who is Jewish.

"Police involvement in the matter was intense, as nationwide media attention focused on the incident which had become the impetus for various legislative proposals to curb 'bigotry and violence.' Police staked out entire square blocks of Hartford, hoping for a copy-cat incident to occur in order to charge someone with arson. An early suspect in the case, BARRY DOV SCGUSS, a 17-year 0pold Jewish student, finally confessed to all four arsons. Although the total penalties for four counts of arson could have amounted to virtually life in prison had a real anti-Semite been apprehended, SCHUSS was given a suspended sentence, ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment, and placed on five years probation. SCHUSS had been an avid reader of holocaust literature and admitted that he had set the fires to enhance public awareness of anti-Semitism."   [supra, p.14]

One cannot correctly assert that because the "holocaust" itself is a monstrous deceit, anyone who "avidly" studies it must suffer from "Inductive Deceit Syndrome." The record of Jewish deceit far pre-dates the institutionalization of "holocaust studies" in America. Nor can the assertion of "mental illness" be presented as a sound defense, because, firstly, Jews are handicapped by "mental illness" at higher rates than any other people, and no one knows what, if anything, can be asserted successfully as a normal range for Jews. Can Jews be judged by European standards? Carl Jung had asserted that Jews think differently from Europeans. It would seem that these two people should not even be trying to live under one national roof. The Most High of Israel said through His prophet Amos: "If we do not think alike, can we long walk together?" Jews perceive normalcy as "insanity." Secondly, mental illness does not negate the factualness, or lack thereof, of an event. A mentally ill individual can speak truthfully about an incident, while at all times being "mentally ill." At the same time a perfectly sane individual may be lying about an event. Therefore, one must observe the event described, not the person describing the event.

Let's have a final episode of Jewish fraud presented on this particular post and call it a "wrap."

"Two unnamed Jewish teenagers spray-painted swastikas and anti-Semitic remarks on the home and car of a Jewish family in Marlboro Township, NJ. The two had been arrested for throwing firecrackers at passing cars and a subsequent investigation linked them with the anti-Semitic writing and a series of burglaries. Charges included seven counts of criminal mischief, four counts of burglary and two counts of theft. The two teens were not prosecuted for 'hate crimes,' however. Marlboro Township Detective Sgt. ROBERT HOLMES said, 'It's tough to prove their actions are anti-Semitic if they're both Jewish.' "   [supra, p.15]

Naturally, no one would suppose that "framing" nonJews in a fraud crime is worth the charge its written on. Jews are accustomed to luxuriate in their alleged history of mistreatment by Europeans, expecting to receive the "top bunk" in a dual legal system wherein the "book" is thrown at white folks alleged to have committed a "hate crime," such as condemning an Executive Branch shot-through with Israel Uber Alles "Advisers." Never has such an unworthy people, such as Jews, had so many fools fighting one another to be first to turn over power and wealth to them to administer. Since Jews always look to advance the Jewish World Agenda, they are becoming candidates for the first true World Tyrant. Is insanity catching?

Downnlaced, 2008.

This is an issue that has been worsening since the late eighties and grown since then. Statistics on income growth are measured using the traditional divisions of our economic community including the top, middle and bottom income earners. When looking at the top group during the period from 1980 to 2005, we see an increase in their income of 16.4%. This seems reasonable given the reports of economic growth reported from Canada in recent years. But unfortunately, the growth seen by income earners seems to hit a wall beyond this group of higher wage earners.

Low income Canadians have been hit hard during the period in question, seeing their average income drop by 20.6%. Even the middle group of wage earners were left out of any benefit from the economy's growth seeing their income stagnate at 0.1% growth. What makes this even more disturbing is the fact that our economy has seen significant growth if you believe the reports of the last decade. It seems apparent which group is benefiting from the current health of the Canadian economy

One of the most disturbing facts that has been revealed by this survey is that the two groups most drastically effected by this dipping of economic fortunes are the younger generations and recent immigrants. The group of workers from 25-29 has seen a drastic decrease in their annual income during the period of this report, a drop which will likely flow into the future of Canada's workforce driving the average wages of future generations on a similar course. Armine Yalnizyan, a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said the following in an interview with CBC News, "The next generation is really going to suffer... This might be the first generation that clearly is not going to do better than their parents' generation."

So this is the state of our "flourishing" economy. For years we have heard reports regarding the strength of the Canadian economy while the fortunes of most Canadians were shrinking or stagnating. To the untrained eye, it would appear that the well being of the average citizen is not taken into consideration when determining the health of the nation. Their is a profound disconnect between the wealthy and the growing ranks of the poor which I will deal with in more detail in coming posts. For now, here are some more places with information on this issue including the Statistics Canada report and the CBC news story that I sourced here.

CBC News: Income gaps grow, as Canada's have-nots get left behind

Statistics Canada: Earnings and Incomes of Canadians Over the Past Quarter Century, 2006 Census

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

In the opening weeks of the general-election campaign, Sen. Barack Obama has moved aggressively to shape his campaign and offered a clear road map for the kind of candidate he is likely to become in the months ahead: an ambitious gamer of the electoral map, a ruthless fundraiser and a scrupulous manager of his own biography in the face of persistent concerns about how he is perceived.
 

Obama's early maneuvers suggest a clear understanding within the campaign of his strengths and weaknesses. He bought air time in 18 states, a sure sign that he hopes to expand Democrats' traditional electoral map. He opted out of the public campaign-financing system -- revealing his determination to press his financial advantage, even at the cost of handing his Republican opponent the opportunity to raise questions about the sincerity of his rhetoric on reform.

And with a first ad that delves into his biography, Obama acknowledged ongoing concerns among his advisers that voters do not know whether he shares the values and beliefs of ordinary Americans, a potentially critical vulnerability. The ad speaks to the reality that enough questions were raised about Obama through the long nomination battle that he needs to address them. The campaign's concerns include both taking on misinformation -- such as the persistent claim that he is Muslim when he is in fact a Christian -- and framing a biography unlike that of any nominee in the modern era.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/w
p-dyn/content/article/2008/06/22
/AR2008062201964.html?hpid=topnews

Dean Baird takes some very good photos, by the way.

One of the Sunday paper presenters at TAM6 has a brand-new website up - 'Tools For Skeptics',

"The purpose of the site is to assist the skeptic movement with better software tools". For free? As an experienced site-creating consultant? Or based on assumptions about the internet and how people behave regarding health issues when using it?

And it just got me thinking, which might have you groaning... just on the heels of my last inquiry, after all! At any rate, I'm interested to find out just how much knowledge skeptics have about the impact of the internet. Because it's just one part of the research into what makes people believe in weird things - a part that requires some more work, from what limited information published so far.

There's been a lot of vague opinions (from 'women's magazines are to blame' to 'John Edward on the television'), but I'm more interested in finding out what contributes to the bigger picture, not just 'blame the small screen'. A shame that doesn't seem to be said more often?

The site 'Skeptools' says that "the world wide web is chock-full of misinformation" - just how much research backs up that people are seeking particular sorts of misinformation on the web? What are the most popular sites for help-seeking? I know that one proactive Australian has been seeking out challenging information provided on Yahoo Answers, but is it bigger than that?

Most importantly - who is to say that 'skeptics are the answer', if there really is a problem? What research on consumer behavior on the internet and breakdown of age, gender and seeking habits reflects this statement?

My interest stems from the site's claim that the internet is primarily 'bad' in terms of providing information. But how much of a judgement is that? It is something that one of the Science Bloggers (Thus Spake Zuska) is reflecting upon recently, in terms of the impact of science blogs and what influence they have. This includes what it brings to the bloggers themselves.

Secondly, how much experience do the creators of such sites have on applying the popular catchphrase 'Web 2.0"? What studies on internet behavior, social networking, the effectiveness of such strategies?

I say this after my most recent blog-post on unpredictable internet behavior and the studies of a co-worker, who noted that research into internet behavior is still developing. There's a few relevant papers that could be of use in such a project, but I'm wondering just how many of the Sunday Paper Presenters have drawn upon such resources? 

To say the internet is 'chock-full of misinformation' is one thing. To actually know how much 'chock' and whether it is having a particular impact is another... A letter to Chest Journal recently addressed similar claims about the issue of people using the internet for diagnosis for health conditions:

...However, the claim that “patients seem to have a misplaced faith in the quality of health-related information available on the Internet” is specious, at best. Certainly, there is the potential for Web sites to impart unsubstantiated health information, which might yield deleterious consequences for the unwary Internet user. But evidence suggests that there are many Web sites that provide patients with sound, evidence-based medical information that may be of undoubted benefit in the health-care decision-making process. A recent study in an internal medicine practice revealed that, utilizing the most conservative estimating methods, 27% of patients use the Internet to obtain health or medical information. This number is in concordance with previously published studies, although Peterson and Fretz obtained a result of 16%. With the proportion of patients using the Internet for health information increasing, health professionals should command a greater awareness of online health and medical resources that are available to patients.

This does not mean that health professionals should exert more control over online resources. There are several organizations, including the Health on the Net Foundation, the Internet Healthcare Coalition, and Health Internet Ethics, that monitor the quality of online health information. Rather, it is imperative that objective evidence about the efficacy of Internet-based patient education materials be gathered by health-care researchers.

How can skeptic sites really know that they're not going to just end up preaching to the choir? How many people are likely to be redirected to an independent project in comparison to other commercial sites (like the cited Health on the Net Foundation, the Internet Healthcare Coalition, and Health Internet Ethics) which have more money, time, government support and vested interest in providing services? Is this a 'niche' that is too broad to try to tackle on one's own?

I know that within Australia, if you want to have a fine example of a site, company and magazine that provides support and information on consumer rights, frauds and scams - you can't go past Choice Magazine. "No advertising, no bias… just reliable, expert advice." They feature a magazine, a website, have articles and investigations that lead the way in how to question what's to buy and what's to avoid.

Finally, how do we define 'effectively'? What research on the consumer behavior patterns regarding seeking information and whether the internet is truly the prime source of 'misinformation'?

What research has been developed on media viewing behavior or sources of 'misinformation', in particular those that influence belief in paranormal or pseudoscientific concepts and any damaging consequences that come from it? 

In short, there's a serious amount of work that needs to be acknowledged before it comes across as a simple answer - pfft, but you knew that already, didn't you? ;)

It is interesting that a presenter is assuming from the start that the primary influence on 'misinformation gathering' is the internet (what stats? Any independent studies done by such a site or being drawn upon?) - or that using the internet in response is going to reach that particular target audience. I guess it also depends on what position you might take:

That belief in misinformation, created by paranormal or pseudoscientific practices (and practitioners) stems from generally positive and uncritical media coverage of claims (including the internet), that then influences a primarily uncritical audience. The sheer volume creates an atmosphere of acceptance that such 'cures' or 'solutions' must and do exist (French and Wilson, 2007; Sparks and Miller, 2001).

What if it's an AND/OR, as demonstrated by a more significant body of research that points out:

There is a correlation between paranormal belief and deficit in syllogistic reasoning (Evans & StB, 1989; Evans, StB, Newstead & Byrne, 1993; Merla-Ramos, 2000). Such as affirmation of the consequent in 'UFO cover-ups'. Include distorted concepts of randomness (e.g Type I (false alarms - more likely by believers) and Type II errors (missing meaning and patterns - more likely by skeptics...) (Brugger, Landis & Regard, 1990; Brugger, 2001; Brugger & Taylor, 2003).

Include a tendency towards perceptual biases (Brugger, Regard, Landis, Cook, Krebs & Nederberger, 1993; Pizzagalli, Lehmann, Gianotti, Koenig, Tanaka, Wackermann & Brugger, 2000); susceptibility to experiencing anomalous sensations / some cases more suggestible (Wiseman, Watt, Greening, Stevens & O'Keeffe, 2002; 2003); tendency towards memory bias (French, 2003; Clancy, McNally, Schacter, Lenzenweger & Pitman, 2002); proneness to false memories (Wilson & French, 2006)? Include non-conscious processing (Wilson, 2002; Rensink, 2004) and dual processing (Lindeman & Aarnio, 2005; 2007, Stanovich & West, 2003).

I must say, it is rather unfortunate that in Australia, the phrase 'Tools For Skeptics' can have an entirely different meaning. It is also rather unfortunate that we seem to strike out as independent solutions, rather than drawing on the strengths of groups that already exist, who share some of the same goals as us.

Have you noticed that your paddle has more than one hole in the center of it? That is where you join the two pieces of the paddle. One hole puts both blades parallel to each other. The other hole offsets the paddle blades. That offset configuration lays one blade flat to the water; where as, the other paddle stands more vertical to the water. Kayakers call a paddle that has offset blades feathered. The blades are sometimes angled 30° to 90° along the shaft of the paddle. Many experts, books, web sites, instructors, and sales people contest that their opinions on the advantages and disadvantages on using a feathered paddle are the correct ones. Unfortunately, the aforementioned beliefs are sometimes contradictory or ambiguous.

Staying in the kayak is why we as kayakers use a feathered paddle. The offset blades main objective is to aid the kayaker in quick recovery bracing techniques. A person can still brace and remain upright when using a non-feathered paddle; however, it is not as efficient. Certified instruction is the best way to learn safe bracing techniques.

Reading about and watching videos on the high and low brace without proper classroom instruction is dangerous. Instructors will aid you in getting into the proper anatomical position.

Wind is not a major factor in a feathered paddle. The ability to slice through wind is not a main benefit to an offset paddle blades. The decreased wind resistance on a forward stroke is only a minor advantage of feathering a paddle.

Some even think that the notion of wind traveling sideways towards the kayak is a reason not to feather the blades. A crosswind rarely can catch the flattened blade and nock the kayaker off balance.

Kayakers feather their paddle to decrease the worry of unplanned rolling through bracing. It is bracing with a feathered paddle that quickly keeps the kayaker in a dry and upright position. A trained instructor will assist you better in refining these bracing movements with a feathered paddle.

It is frustrating to come across conflicting advantages and disadvantages of a feathered paddle. The misinformation exists due to the large number of experts, books, web sites, instructors, and sales people. All of these experts have different levels of knowledge, training, and personal kayaking experiences. The best thing that a kayaker should do is get out there, get some personal instruction, and have fun.

Standing in  the checkout line at grocery stores,  I often get a laugh as I read the tabloid headlines.  Almost any outrageous claim can be found there.  I remember from years ago headlines like "Ninety-year-old Woman Has Triplets," and "President Clinton Confers with Extraterrestrials."  And the story about Clinton included "photographs" to prove it.

I started thinking about the people who buy these papers. No one that I know has ever admitted buying one.  And I have never seen anyone carrying a tabloid out of the store.  But somebody must be buying them; otherwise the publishers would go broke.  I wonder whether tabloid readers are the same people who watch wrestling on television and think it is really an athletic contest. 

I was thinking about this and about people who buy tabloids, and I suddenly stopped laughing.  It dawned on me that every person who believes the stuff printed in the tabloids has a vote equal to that of the most informed citizen.  It was a sobering thought. 

Yet, I often hear commentators and politicians lamenting the fact that, typically, fewer than sixty percent of the eligible voters actually vote in American elections. What is the common denominator between people who don't vote.  Maybe those who measure reality by tabloid standards are the non-voters.  Let's hope so.

Considering the potential of the Tabloid Block to skew the outcome of elections, why is there such a big push every election year to "get out the vote"?   It seems to me that easy registration and easy voting are bad signs in a democracy.  I figure anybody who forgets to register or to vote probably doesn't remember the issues or the candidates' names either.  

Maybe that's why we have to have such long and expensive campaigns before elections.  It now takes a year and a half for presidential candidates to establish name recognition.  Probably the reason that incumbents have an advantage over the other candidates is that they have been in the news for four or more years, and the voters have finally remembered their names.  That would explain why incumbents are almost automatically re-elected and why some people have wanted to limit the terms of office holders.

But that's just one of the problems with elections these days.  Another one is that the costs of campaigning have become absurdly high.  If the trend continues, soon only the very rich-- or those who have been bought by special interest groups--will stand any chance of being elected to Federal offices.  

Here are a few modest proposals that might make elections less expensive for the candidates and a little less wearisome to people who think they have a civic duty to pay attention to campaigns.  

    1. Limit the campaign season for elections to six months. Long campaigns are relics from horse-and-buggy days. With today's advanced communication, long campaigns are unnecessary.

    2. At the beginning of the campaign season, require each candidate to publish a position paper that sets forth the candidate's views on the twenty most important issues and the candidate's proposals for solving associated problems.  These position papers would allow voters to make more intelligent decisions on election day and would serve as records of campaign promises.

    3. Hold all primaries throughout the country on the same day, three months before election day. Party conventions could be held between primary day and election day. 

    4. For the privilege of being licensed to operate, television stations and networks should be required to give a limited and equal number of hours of air time to each major party's nominee for a Federal office.

It might be that such measures would not only reduce the costs of conducting a campaign for candidates, but would also give voters easier access to solid information about candidates' ideas for conducting the people's business.

Another example of this governments environmental hypocrisy was revealed in an investigative report by the CBC this week (Terry Milewski, CBC News, Lakes across Canada face being turned into mine dump sites, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/16/condemned-lakes.html). In it, Terry Milewski reveals that the Federal Government, most likely on the lobby of mining companies, have slated 16 lakes across Canada for use as dump sites for the toxic by-products of the mining process. All of these lakes had their designations changed to the status of toxic dump, four of which are already being used for this purpose, and all of the lakes slated for this toxic dumping were previously prime territory for fish and game.

How did they pull this one off? Well typically, under the Fisheries Act, all bodies of water that are able to sustain waterborne life are protected from toxic dumping under the law, but as usual, the feds dug themselves a new loophole when the rest us of had our eyes diverted elsewhere. In 2002, a subsection innocuously named Schedule 2 was added to allow for mine effluent dumping in otherwise protected waters... according to Milewski, "...under a little-known subsection known as Schedule Two of the mining effluent regulations, federal bureaucrats can redefine lakes as "tailings impoundments areas." Ain't that a kicker!

The Mining Association is labeling this type of dumping the "safest option" for the disposal of mining toxins and the government is in complete agreement and is adding some nonsense about creating jobs (apparently the jobs created by the fisheries, tourism and their residual overflow are not considered worthwhile forms of income... perhaps they are not multinational enough).

Meanwhile, environmentalists are pointing out some of the more obvious facts such as the inevitable die-off and extinction of wildlife and the possible negative and lethal health effects to neighboring humans, never mind the dangers usually associated with introducing chemicals into a watershed. Catherine Coumans, speaking on behalf of the environmental group Mining Watch says that "...eight lakes are going to be subject to being put on Schedule Two, which is just about every mine that is going ahead this year is looking around, looking for the nearest lake to dump its waste into.” (CBC)

Basically, Canadian fresh water, some of the last in the world, is being viewed as dispensable and is being valued as nothing more than a boon for the mining industry. "Coumans said the procedure amounts to a subsidy to the industry and enables mines to get around the Fisheries Act." (CBC) While the rest of the world is clamoring to find sources of fresh water, Canada is throwing it away as an industrial waste utility. If anybody was ever curious about how powerful the "big business" lobby was in our parliament, now you know. A hell of a lot more potent than the environmental one!

So the next time you hear any environmental talk from the mouths our politicians, you can now be sure that it is no more than "double talk." When your children or grandchildren are living without any sources of fresh water, consider this moment in time and the people who bargained away the future to make a few extra bucks! But hell, its all about the money right?