Slashdot Mirror
When Celebrities Speak on Science
Timberwolf0122 writes to mention that the website Sense About Science is encouraging stars not to comment on scientific issues without at least checking their facts. A somewhat amusing article on the BBC matches up a few comments made by celebrities with the factual reaction from experts in the field of study tackled by their blunder.
I gotta say as a scientist and professor that I agree completely with this position of reserving comment in the public spotlight until you have done a little homework. All too often we have celebrities and politicians using their status to manipulate science to bend to a political whim or will, or simply to just espouse a misunderstanding. Fundamentally, the problem is that we have a very poor science education curriculum in many schools in the US and internationally and we get individuals who are high school dropouts become actors and are now capable of garnering much attention towards their issue of the moment. That is not intended to be insulting nor does it minimize their position or status, it is simply asking them to refrain from doing a job they are not qualified for.
We have minimized the importance of science in our lives and it is now biting us collectively in the ass in terms of environment, medicine, technological progress, and education. Rather than hamstringing scientists, and only allowing them to speak when it serves the political climate of the moment, I would very much like to see a return to using scientists expertise in more areas of society and policy, perhaps even increasing the numbers of consultants for politicians, and the entertainment industry, not just as a reality check, which so many seem to be mis-using scientists for, but also as a means to spur inquiry and progress in both the arts and sciences. The model of using scientists as regulators of policy and such is as old as 1950's Sci-Fi, but it has been no accident that during the most progressive periods in history, we have relied on scientists and others who are trained to think and inquire to make some of our biggest technological advancements. These advancements include great strides in medicine, prolonging life-spans and improving the quality of life as well as ending global wars and in the absence of political influences, ending famine and disease.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Celebrities should be seen not heard.
Maybe the politicians can shut up about science, creationism and turtle wax?
And most important: never hear what Tom Cruise has to say about science.
Yet idiots in the US clammor for celebs to speak on their behalf in front of congress. I know that when I want to know more about ALAR and it's effects, I look to Merrill Streep.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Never Gonna Happen.
Stars think that because of the fact that they are famous and are seen by millions of people, they have the right to have an opinion about anything. There are times that that is good (George Clooney on Dafur for example) and I personally have no problem with that as long as the opinion as long as it is an informed opinion. But the fact is that stars are just like end users with computer hardware or software. They are not going to read something to avoid shooting themselves in the foot. They'll just start shooting and hope for the best.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
...the article also encourage slashdot posters not to reply without first reading the article!
:s
Well, it might say that, I haven't read it yet
Oh no... it's the future.
But the real news here is -- Chris de Burgh is a "celebrity"? Does anyone here under 30 know who he was? For that matter, how many people over 30 remember who he was?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I love this quote by Melinda Messenger: "Why should I allow my body or my children to be filled with man-made chemicals, when I don't know what the health effects of these substances will be."
That would be the same Melinda Messenger that has breast implants.
I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.
Even TV programs that try to get good technical advisers, like NUMB3RS, frequently get basic science and technology wrong. I don't know anyone who can crack a disk encryption scheme in a few seconds anytime they want.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
What about politicians? On a personal level, I'm much more concerned whenever I hear politicians say nearly anything about science. On some level, many people have a inkling that celebs are a high percentage crackpot, but elected officials pass laws. Very scary.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Those weren't so bad. People are looking past the intent and overall meaning of what they said and instead focusing on nitty gritty details that anyone is bound to get wrong. The first one about filling her body with chemicals (haha but everything's a chemical, you stupid bitch!) is perfectly legit. The second one, while poorly phrased, didn't say that walking took away the injury, but rather that it took away the pain. How is that so stupid? The third is probably the worst, but still she's right about a lack of information having a negative effect on cancer awareness. The milk one is again pretty stupid, I admit, but childhood obesity IS indeed a problem. And lastly, force-feeding animals shouldn't be done, but not because it gives us "cancer", but because it's cruel and inhumane.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
In the past, often the only thing which brought me up again after a lost football match of my favorite team was listening the offender explaining the physics behind why they didn't score.
Lifestyle Gurus, Not Unix
I don't know about you in the rest of the world. But here in Brasil, we would be very thankful if they stoped talking about politics also.
Your ad could be here!
I love the fact that this is a mere two posts above Bill Gates on Robots.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
It isn't just movie stars, it is Scientists, Philosophers, and Theologians of all kinds overstepping their professional bounds and being taken as fact by the public because they have PHD behind their name. Just because you are a PHD doesn't mean you have a great grasp of Evolution, Embryology, Theology, or any other hot topic area. Stick to your area of expertise and work things out that way.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
It's not that they are espousing clueless opinions. It's that they are being repeated ad nauseum as if it were true. We're talking folks who have the potential to get a lot more press that you or I could.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Awww... they're quoting Joanna Lumley in that article. :-(
Are those what qualify as celebrities in Britain?
I seem to recall the name from high school in the early 80's, but I can't recall what he was famous for.
Best Slashdot Co
That was the song that jumped into my head as soon as I saw his name, and the same thought occurred to me... not exactly the kind of guy who's on the cover of magazines at the super market. That being said, the claims they made weren't the worst I've heard, but as the experts point out, there is no evidence to support their viewpoint.
Judging by the selection of 'celebrities' in the story, perhaps it's female celebrities who should be prevented from talking about scientific matters. My favourite piece of witless scientific investigation was on BBC1 a couple of years ago. Low-IQ pratt Richard Hammond did a half-hour programme on the supposed problems of the combined MMR vaccine. After spending 28 minutes finding not a shred of evidence that the MMR vaccine was in any way dangerous his equally-witless wife then piped up to say 'well you can never be sure can you'? Thus rendering the entire programme a cretinous waste of time and scaring another generation of Epsilon women into not getting their children immunised.
'Doctor' Fox:"Did you know that genetically paedophiles have more in common with crabs than with humans? There's no evidence for this, but it's still scientific fact."
Phil Collins:"What am I talking? I'm talking 'Nonce Sense'"
Etc.,
Actually, I'd rather that the professor tell his brother the federal agent that he can get the school's computer lab machines to work in parallel, trying to brute-force the encryption, and that given the complexity of the problem, he'll have it cracked anywhere between 0 and x hours. Then the FBI agent brother could go do something else and get a call on his cell phone from the geek brother that they cracked it.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
While I'm very sympathetic to the idea that only experts should speak about certain matters, I'm a bit concerned about how a general demand for this will chill public discourse. A famous bishop once asked why we go to a chemist to find out about chemistry, but anybody thinks they know enough to talk about spiritual matters. The argument he was putting forth was that spirituality really is a matter requiring much study (especially if one equates it with a sort of wisdom) and so should be discussed by dilletantes, as most of us are. We might add to this the question of whether the majority of us are qualified to discuss or make decisions about ethical matters. Again, there are specialists for these things, and ethics has been an esoteric field of study at least since Aristotle. And what about politics and foreign affairs? Why do we all feel that we are particularly qualified to have opinions about these matters that everyone should hear? An obvious response is that our politicians aren't all that bright and this gives us the right and the obligation -- but, hey, there are lots of dopey scientists, too. They are still the goto people on matters that fall under their expertise. While I think that the common man and the non-expert can often get important matters in ethics, politics, and science wrong, no one gains without the public discourse about these things. By talking more, rather than less, I think we all gain a better understanding of science, despite the inaccuracies, which will be corrected along the way.
I was expecting to agree mostly with the scientists the BBC pulled in, but instead I found myself mostly agreeing with the Stupid Stars. Look at this scientist's response to Melinda Messanger:
"The chemical baggage we carry is very small. It is only because of the great advances in analytical chemistry that we are able to detect it's there at all."
He does not address the central question of whether such small baggage causes health issues - he totally misses the point. Besides, if you drill down far enough, you'll find that today's medical science really doesn't "know" much at all. Despite all our knowledge, we're babes in the woods when it comes to understanding the human body and the cumulative long term and combinatorial effect of these substances.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
I'm under 30, but I'm not sure I'd have heard of him if I hadn't lived in England for a couple of years.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
Celeb says: expert says: Yes, the body has a certain tolerance against synthetical chemicals, otherwise we wouldn't be here today, but that doesn't mean that certain chemicals you encounter in food, etc. doesn't have a bad effect on the body. In some cases we just don't know yet, and I believe this is what the celeb was saying.
Celeb says: expert says: The Celeb wasn't talking about food additives, but chemicals the animals receive and that is scientifically proven to cause problems. For example the documentary, "The Corporation", has a lengthy segment about harm caused by synthetic chemicals as told by an expert - Samuel Epstein (professor emeritus of environmental medicine, university of Illinois). The relevant example shown is the case with the Monsanto drug posilac. That drug is increasing the milk production of cows, at the expense of immense suffering on behalf of the cows and as it turned out it posed a health hazard to humans aswell. Although this is not an example of 'cancer', the prof specifically mentioned the history of synthetic chemicals. At first warning signs and then data emerged about the unintended consequences of the petrochemical era, that some of the chemicals that permiated through the food chain produce cancer, birth defects and other toxic effects.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
This is the most pathetic list of "celebrities" I have ever seen - the UK equivalent of the "D-List", or worse. I doubt that anyone in the US would pay much attention to what Ted "Isaac your Bartender" Lange said about science issues, and these people look like the near-equivalent. When Kathy Griffin testifies before congress on the dangers of large hadron colliders, then, we should be worried.
But many people posting here know about as much about science and technology (outside of their narrow field of knowledge) as these people. And it never stops them. Of course, no one pays any attention to what we say, justifiably, but the posts about "well, look at the dumb celeb comments" will be followed in a few hours "OMG my hybrid gets 700 mpg coasting downhill, why doesn't the government measure that?" and "lets convene Nuremburg trials for anyone who doesn't sign the Kyoto treaty" type of high-level thinking.
Brett
50 posts and no mention of the granddaddy of all celebrity+science sites?
http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm
It's so easy to blast a celebrity for an inaccurate talk on scientific matters. However, each of us are guilty of spewing out incorrect information because we believed it was right.
I don't care if Tom Cruise or Donald Trump speak authoritatively. What I do care about is the friends, neighbors, teachers, and other adults that have an overwhelming influence over their peers (children, students, friends, etc.). To the public, Cruise & Trump are fiction. To you, your teacher talking about Evolution is real.
I expect someone will point out the difference between my neighbour and a celebrity is the latter has an audience of thousands and therefore has a larger effect. That would seem to be true, but I highly doubt it. Only the disillusioned will absorb the words of a celebrity. But embracing the information that a friend, neighbor or teacher imparts to you is a natural thing because we typically have trust in those surrounding us. A teacher has so much more authority and leverage to influence you into believing incorrectly, a level of influence that Tom Cruise cannot match.
This isn't to say that television is not influential, only that there should be stronger fears than the celebritity: those people (including ourselves) close to us that impart incorrect knowledge on a daily basis.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Gee, Cyanide is a "natural" chemical -- try putting that in your body and see how safe it is!
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/
Not sure why this wasn't in the BBC article...
For better or worse George W. Bush is a celebrity and according to him the jury is still out on evolution. Amazing isn't it? Kind of makes me take three steps back.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It's amazing how many people confuse popularity for authoritative, scientific thought. This conceit goes so far that many celebrities believe themselves. As we've already noted, people like Tom Cruise, Barbara Streisand, and Jane Fonda do this all too regularly. Why in the world would some actor know more about AIDS or cancer (even testifying in front of Congress, for frak's sake) than the average Joe or a medical professional?
Actors should be reminded that, just because they've played a doctor, doesn't make them one.
Other popular people should be pelted with rotten produce and harsh words by the anti-clique popular people whose feet are well grounded as to who they are and what they really know, like Dennis Miller (most of the time).
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
The problem is not celebrities making comments without checking the facts. The problem is news producers giving them air play without checking the facts.
In the United States there are enough "technology-enabled" dim people that will pay attention to/listen to/commit funds to any particular appeal they think is worthy regardless of validity (plays on emotion seem to usually work). This is why the appearance of success/acceptance is more important than reality.
This explains spam.
I dunno, Paris Hilton's opinion on CCIE Storage certification is pretty spot-on:
http://www.routergod.com/index.php?p=30
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
If you want to actually take a pop-stars advice on what to eat or how to deal with cancer then I don't really feel inclined to blame the star for the consequences.
the more miserable you are now, the funnier the story will be later
Arrrec Barrrrrrrrrrwin
In people the evidence is sparse and only correlative, simply because we do not do properly controlled studies which attempt to cause cancer in humans. In animals, however, the scientific evidence is plentiful that some commonly used food additives cause cancer under carefully controlled conditions. Thus the truth of the scientist's statement rests on your definition of "definitive".
And of course, being overweight would have nothing to do with what is eaten, and is simply a lifestyle? Again, in animals the scientific evidence is plentiful that some commonly used food additives cause obesity under carefully controlled conditions. In humans, we do not usually conduct experiments in which diet is controlled for long enough to observe the corresponding result. It's very expensive to get people to eat only what you tell them to for months or years at a time, especially if they know half of the participants could end up in poor health.
Seems to be a day for ignoring knowledge and dictating what populations should think... so...
Just type in "cancer causing food" into google and you get sites like this :
http://www.newstarget.com/002079.html
"Prof John Toy : It is essential that 'cancer-causing' claims are based only on scientifically proven facts, not scaremongering."
I can choose for myself, and freespeach is freespeach.
... you get Celebrity Jeopardy!
Reminds me of this link I ran across recently:
h tm
http://www.mercola.com/article/microwave/hazards.
I'd like to see some of the resident RF specialists around here take this apart. My favorite line from the whole thing:
Microwaved food contains both molecules and energies not present in food cooked in the way humans have been cooking food since the discovery of fire. Microwave energy from the sun and other stars is direct current based.
There are many other gems in there though.
-R
And Philip Coan replies:
The celebrity claimed a relationship between increases in weight and level of milk consumption.
Nor did the celebrity claim such a linkage. Milk has about 14 grams of sugar per cup, regardless of its fat content. Eating lots of sugar can certainly lead to obesity.
Lastly, the celeb made a statement about children, and Coan rebutted it with a study on two to five-year-olds.
I'm not saying the celeb is necessarily right, but this rebuttal is hollow.
"On how to prevent breast cancer by giving women more information about 'the importance of keeping the lymph system clear and unclogged'"
Remember kids, you should always change your lymph filter once every 3,000 miles.
My ol' mother went to Catholic school for 9 years and she knew more about sex and birth control and all that than any of her other peers once she got to public high school.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I actually feel that three out of the five celebrity comments are perfectly "reasonable".
MELINDA MESSENGER and JOANNA LUMLEY don't want all kinds of crazy shit in their food. Neither do I. Things that were formally thought 'safe' are later proven harmful all the time. And there are things that we *know* aren't safe that are still in our food (growth hormones, trans fats, etc.). Are "scientists" arguing that organic food is just second-rate overpriced food for the paranoid?
CHRIS DE BURGH helped relieve his friend's pain. Subjective and therefore irrefutable. Doctors are in a huff because they didn't get the sell the patient anything to get the same results.
CAROLE CAPLIN. Don't have the slightest idea what she's talking about.
HEATHER MILLS MCCARTNEY. Can't confirm or refute her conjecture.
what a bunch of pompous assholes the scientists sound like.
how dare anyone (especially celebrities express concerns about the chemicals that are in everything we eat and the air we breath)
cause science has proved so fucking infallible in the past.... how long was asbestos on the market?
now sure sometimes the layperson maybe be well talking out their arse...but if people choose to take a non experts word for something without doing some verification that is on them.
I don't trust scientists on the face value of what they say any more than celebrities however.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
Just trying to see if I can make this thread even more obscure... :)
A goal is a dream with a deadline
...celebrities not to comment on any issue without a brain being engaged first (theirs, or someone else's if they're lacking in that department)?
Surely a reference to Brass Eye is relevant here, as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye
Having Tom Cruise rant and rave against Psychiatry and drugs that help with mental conditions yet be believes that we are from the planet xeno is just one reason that should not speak.....period. It really reminds me of "Team America" where the celebrities "read the paper and then repeat it like it is our ideas". There are some celebs that are fairly knowledgeable about science but those are very few and very far between.
Listening to nearly all celebs talking about science is about the same as listening to politicians describe the internet.
I think maybe the thing that people forget is that there is a difference between science (as in, the study of whatever), and SCIENCE (guys with clipboards in labcoats and $100,000+ equipment).
You don't need to consult Bill Nye to know how to make informed, every day decisions.
But if you're going to listen to someone's opinion on immigration reform and how it affects your decision on whether to send your kids to private school or not, don't take Joe Blow on the radio's insight to heart, look to the opinion of a sociologist on the issue.
There are many people studying different areas of our increasingly complicated and specialized lives, and they will provide valuable knowledge the helps humanity. You just have to look for it... and beware the appeal to authority (i.e. celebrities: the point of the article).
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
So what are you hiding??? what are your crimes, StressGuy?! Spit them out, because it seems to me that there's something that you want to get out of your chest! What are _YOUR_ crimes?
This article is fairly insulting. First, it's 4 women and one man. The sub-text is, 'stupid women'. Second, the things they say are really not all that outrageous. It's more an example of techno-elitism -- people who consider themselves superior, mocking those who are not so technical. Yeah, its true that most foriegn chemicals don't accumulate in the body to any great extent, but the basic concern about running inorganic chemicals through our system and the interactions they have in transit is a reasonable concern. On balance, most of these seem like minor gaffs. I'm more concerned with Al Gore and Tom Cruz saying things they know are not true in order to influence the uninformed. Why didn't these high profile examples make the article?
But what about how early girls are now getting their curves?
Someone get the memo out to Trey Parker and Matt Stone!
unless maybe the actor is also a member of Mensa; for example: Geena Davis, James Woods, etc. Then I will read the quote. I guess getting my news from the Internet for over a decade has really made me question "any" single source of information. Headlines and celebrity quotes are just attention getters: assumed false until verified.
As heard on Top Gear, "Cameron Diaz is saying 'My Prius gets 56mpg.' No it doesn't! It simply doesn't! But if it does, I'll let her sleep with me!"
That you admit that there are plenty of scientists who want to be celebrities or rockstars shows that the parent was not making a strawman argument.
Besides, when it comes to setting policy , science is often wrong or right for the wrong reasons, just like clergy. A scientist who is wrong, but thinks he/she is right might adamantly argue for a poor policy and still be considered a "good" scientist under your criteria. Just because someone doesn't seek notoriety doesn't mean they won't strenuously argue for a flawed outcome.
Boom Shanka
Technopoly. Neil Postman had it pegged. We live in a Regime of Experts, and we are slaves of The Latest Study. Is anyone surprised then that celebrities--or anyone--fake expertise?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Talking out of your ass is a BAD thing. Who would have thought??
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Thanks for that link, that was indeed funny. However, there's a bit of a common problem with the idea behind the discussion.
:-) I could think of worse idiots to worry about, like certain prime ministers and presidents. Most celebs mainly add some noise to the S/N ration of media outlets..
I'm not for or against Ms Hilton but I would just suggest that being naive does not quite equate to being stupid. Given that she clocks more cash per hour than quite a few of us make in a year by using the hard-to-misuse tools of family name branding I would venture that she's not entirely bereft of her senses - you and I would too if given the opportunity.
Given that she does that without too much environmental damage (other than a lot of extra hot air the moment another picture gets printed
Going back to the original observation, disconnecting being "inexperienced/naive" (or at least start with that assumption) from any observation about intelligence would also allow quite a few people that have grown smart enough to at least start ASKING questions to get decent answers instead of a barrage of abuse. Now THAT I would call intelligence on the side of those who answer..
Like Al Gore commenting on man-made global warming when the best and latest science is indicating that man has little impact when compared to nature herself.
But, it's all the cows. If man weren't here we wouldn't have all the cows.
BS, the favorite line flies in the face of other eco-nuts that say the world would have more animals, and more diversity if man weren't around. Remember, the plains were black with heards of buffalo. Whales were in super abundance, and they produce huge amounts of methane. Wildlife farts and breathes.
"KYOTO!" they yell. Signing onto Kyoto does nothing, complying with Kyoto would affect the climate by a percentage of a degree. Yet, cause harm to the burgeoning economies of the worlds most poorest countries.
The Earth is in a warming phase, and still much cooler than the last warming cycle. Hell, we are coming out of a mini-ice-age (geologically recent).
But Al Gore says...Al Gore is a politician that has found a bully pulpit and a willingly naive audience that will march off a cliff if he says it will save a tree. Let's focus on what is important and what we can change:
Raising the living standard in ONE poor country will improve the world's wealth, allow them to live cleaner, and improve the cleanliness of the planet in turn.
Let's not squander the good will of the voters and free citizens of the world by tiring them out on something that they cannot affect.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
As far as I can tell the rebuttals from 'scientist' are just about as informative and trustworthy as most of the quotes from celebrities. Sometimes even less informative. I find it disturbing at how biased the slashdot crowd is towards 'established' academia and people who managed to score an academic degree. The arrogant and wiseass remarks here display clear and unreflected bias very much as any UFO forum or somethign.
The scariest pieces of bullshit I've heard came from academics and scientists, and just because people in general fall for the one or other crackpot notion once in a while I find it unsettling that people usually consider statements from academics more truthfull and academics less prone to crackpot notions, even if they lack objectivity and are merely an expression of antipathy. Which actually indicates the exact oposite.
I do web & IT stuff for pharmaceutical corporations and medical facilities and have times where I get into contact with many acredited academics in various fields of medicine that review scientific IT projects or evaluate e-learning content. After 6 years of work in a field that is the firm grip of academics I can say for shure: The pure-and-utter-bullshit to solid-and-proven-fact ratio in that field is 80 to 20, just like everywhere else. I've met homeopaths with more solid medical knowledge than medicine professors and academic dermatologists that couldn't tell a malign melanome from a pimple if you pushed their face into it. I've seen the medical academic put out obscene amounts of paper and sign it with a straight face, just because their pharmaceutical sponsors want to push a new PPI-drug on to the market, despite a wide array of perfectly suitable existing treaments that have no side-effects.
Thus when a Professor Toy says "There is no definitive evidence that controlled food additives cause cancer." my first gut reaction is to think "Is this guy sponsored by the food industry or does he have a solid trackrecord of purely pulic funded FDA investigations to back his statement on the subject?". I'd go so far and take a statement like that indication that the opposite may be true.
On top of that, some of the comments don't even directly relate to the opposing statements facts.
Bottom line: Just because the statement is from an academic doesn't mean it's less prone to the possibility of being bullshit. People should keep that in mind.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
No problem. Read this artcle There's plenty more on the net. Try Google.
n \archive\200602\NAT20060215c.html
5 2
yeah. That article itself is biased. For example, this quote:
33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)
that shows that Fox viewers are BETTER informed than viewers of other news services. You see, Iraq DID have WMDs and some of them have been found.
From this article:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Natio
Now, I know what you're thinking: "omfg that doesn't agree with what I want to believe therefore I will purge it from my memory." and that's cool. You go right ahead and do that. That will give me the chance to post this link again in the future.
And this there's this story:
http://apps.michigandaily.com/blogs/thepodium/?p=
about how they found 500 or so chemical munitions in iraq - you know, WMDs. Now, I know what you're thinking, "omfg those are from before 1991 so therefore I will ignore this story" and that's cool, you go ahead and use that logic. Just like if you're on probation for armed robbery and they catch you with a gun, you can tell the judge you bought the gun before you were on probation so therefore it doesn't count.
Look, I don't care. The fact is, we've got a "respected" news service (CBS) where somebody actually sits down at a computer and types of a memo and prints it and then they try to pass that off as a 1950's memo about Bush. But you guys go on and on about how Fox news is bias. Whatever. It's obvious where the bias is.
On the one hand, The brilliant media and cultural critic Neal Postman wrote -- and I'm summarizing several books here -- that we should pass a law that any time someone who isn't an expert in the field under discussion says anything about a subject, a big black banner should appear across the bottom of the screen, saying "THIS PERSON DOESN'T KNOW WHAT S/HE IS TALKING ABOUT."
On the *other* hand, Britney sure knows semiconductor physics. I point people at her explanation of VCSELs and how they work because it's way better than what I can crank out in a hurry.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
When you "study" literature or music (and not peripheral fields which are factual, such as the history of literature or the physics of sound), you are only aligning your opinion with subjective judgements held in undeserved reverence. It's legitimized fanboy indoctrination.
Every "expert" in these fields is a bullshitter passing along vague untested, untestable opinions. The only difference between them and your "people who make a blind comment about music" is that an "expert" is passing along other people's opinions he has been trained to treat as his own.
Did you rape a baby?!
Why Oh why would anybody even 'consider' the opinion of a celeb.
Granted, they have the 'right' to say anything they want. (Trouble is, what they say is asinine, moronic, and uniformed.)
'Celebs' are the mental equivalent of 8 year olds. Typically uneducated, live the life of 'me..me..me', and spend more time in front the mirror rather than a book.
Remember, just because they 'seem intelligent' on 'screen' doesnt me they are the same in the 'real world'.
These people 'pretend' in front of camera, they 'pretend' to be other than themselves, they speak words others have written, and walk from one end of stage to another on the cue of others. Basically they are well madeup puppets that can be animated without visible strings or a hand up their butt. (Oh Wait..In hollywierd I suspect the latter form of 'directing' occurs more often than we may think.)
These are hardly the qualifications for somebody capable coherent and independent thought.
(Just look at how many 'believe' Micheal Moore! That would be your first clue).
Dont confuse a 'celebs' intelligence with their 'feel good' causes. It doesnt take much of a brain (or any) to joint PETA or some other wacko group and thus claiming some 'higher ground' above us mere mortals.
Puleeeze.
Celebs? And their 'opinions'?
Hardly a matter of discussion, but rather a 'joke' on those that take them seriously.
Hey.. I still like cartoons. I would put any 'celebs' opinion up against Bugs Bunny's worldly thoughts anyday. It would make for an interesting debate. (I'll put my money on Bugs for the win)
Ok ya Star Magazine readers.. Mod me down.
Maybe not to the extent of real sciences (physics, chemistry, biology astronomy, etc.) but nevertheless a science.
In the first place medicine is a profession and a business, not a science. Its main objective is not accumulating knowledge but healing people (and making money in the process). In order to achieve its objectives medicine uses both empirical (non-scientific) as well as scientific knowledge.
The majority of medical professionals are not scientists but practiotioners and businessmen. There is a minority of medical doctors involved in medical research; no doubt they are scientists.
The same can be said about other types of professionals. For example not all physicists or chemists with PhD degrees are scientists, only those actively involved in research. Physics teachedrs (or even professors) or industrial phyicists are not automatically scientists: they have to carry out scientific research.
I am not talking about 'Bill Nye, The Science Guy', but about Einstein. Probably Einstein knew nothing about medicine but he was the prototype for 'smart guys' and 'scientists'.
1. I mentioned George W. Bush
or
2. I questioned creationism
Slashdot really needs more modirators who don't mod down simply because they disagree.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Quite the opposite.
His mental prowess brought about his celebrity...
Contrast this with how some actor's celebrity is believed to bring about intelligence.
Hardly a valid rebuttal..
But thanks for playing...
I particularly love this response from the expert:
"There is no definitive evidence that controlled food additives cause cancer.
"We do know that half of cancers are caused by lifestyle factors such as being overweight."
To paraphrase, "not only are you wrong, you're fat."
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
... the problem with articles like these is that the criticism is not always fair.
I see nothing wrong with the first two celebrity comments.
"Why should I allow my body or my children to be filled with man-made chemicals, when I don't know what the health effects of these substances will be?"
Melinda Messenger is criticized for this because small amounts of man-made chemicals are present in the body at all times. But Melinda's remark does not deny this or address that issue at all. Her comment is about unspecified "large doses" (i.e. being "filled with") man-made chemicals. The question is perfectly fair. The implication of her remark is that the general population is being exposed to excessive dosages of toxic man-made chemicals. That by itself, is likely to be true in many cases. Yes, she should give specifics. We need to see the context of her remarks. But the above snippet is not self evidentially false, and is a perfectly fair question and concern.
"...he was in serious pain, just below the knee, and I felt the area above had been traumatised. I started feeling and I'd say within 20 minutes, he was walking again. It took away the pain."
Once again, no context is given. Chris De Burgh is singled out for what? Related the facts of what happened? Truthfully? And the scientist critic believes that what he said was true? And gave a plausible explanation of the cause? What falsehoods did Chris De Burgh communicate? I don't see that he made any claim to have healed the underlying injury. Maybe he did in the greater context of his comments, but the comment above as quoted is perfectly OK.
The other criticisms seem correct to me, but this kind of reporting bugs me because it is does not seem to me to be fair or cogent.
while true, it does nothing to explain the speed at which it is happening, and completly ignores the fact that there is more carbon in the air now then in the last 800,000 years. Yes eight hundred thousand years.
800,000 years ago is a drop in the bucket... it is a pitifully short time and it illustrates why people have such a difficult time undertanding why we do not have global warming.
We have had about 20 ice cycles in the last 2 million years. These occur about every 110,000 years and seem to be tied the the Milankovitch cycles. CO2 levels have changed during this ice cycles but the rise in CO2 follows the rise in temperature by about 1000 years.
5 million years ago antarctica and greenland were not frozen over. The present ice age seems to have started about 30 million years ago, however there was cooling before that and this cooling is corellated with the significant mountain building that has taken place since the eocene. Another corellation occured during the Ordovician taconic orogeny and at that time CO2 levels were 13x to 17x greater than now.
There are many factors which seem to need to come together to cause a major cooling such as we have now. Note that for over about 80-90% of the last 600 million years, the planet has been about 10C warmer than now. Some of the factors include the distribution of land mass on the planet, presence of large mountain ranges and where they are located, ocean currents, where our solar system is in the galaxy.
The thing is CO2 does not correlate with temperature changes.
Further more, the levels of CO2 are so small compared to the most important green house gas which is water vapour, that were the climate so sensitive to overall greenhouse gases, a single el-nino event would tip us into a huge warming phase. Note that the effects of an el-nino are several percent more moisture in some areas and several degree. Just compare the absolute humidity for instance to the total CO2. It is quite literally the same as comparing the thickness of a sheet of toilet paper to a tree stump.
So... Gore would qualify as a perfect example of why we should ignore him.
But the scientist, Prof John Toy, uses these words: "It is essential that 'cancer-causing' claims are based only on scientifically proven facts, not scaremongering. There is no definitive evidence that controlled food additives cause cancer.
Replace "cancer" with "global warming" and replace "controlled food additives" with "human activity" and you have almost exactly the argument used by oil companies and many conservatives to claim global warming does not exist.
That doesn't say that global warming does not exist. It says that "human activity" may not cause global warming. Whether or not this is true is certainly debatable, but you're presenting an obviously incorrect conclusion (based on your example) as fact. What it may even say is "yes, there is evidence of global warming but the direct causes are unknown at this time".
When arguing about half-assed statements, you should probably try not to make too many.
Interesting. I had been looking forward to watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" about how the irrefutable truth about global warming has been suppressed for political purposes. Before I had a chance to watch it, I read Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear" (just last week). I was surprised that it was trying to refute the arguments of those who believe in global warming.
Normally, I would have concluded a political agenda, but Michael Crichton is known for doing a lot of research before writing his novels, and presenting an issue in the form of a story. So I paid more attention. Specifically, as another poster had said, what is called into question is whether there is a man-made cause of global warming, and specifically whether cardon dioxide emissions are the culprit.
Crichton invites us to take a look at the original sources from which we can draw our own conclusions about whether there really is global warming. He has a number of articles written by people who believe in man-made causes of global warming, who nevertheless have had to publish data showing otherwise.
I have to admit that most of my beliefs about global warming have come from Slashdot; I can't really cite any particular journal. So, I guess I'll have to decide for myself. Is there global warming? Is it man-made?
Anyone else read "State of Fear"?
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Maybe we should tax celebrities for every wrong thing they say, and dump that money into public education.
I remember my brother and I were arguing with my mom over the merits of using Sea Salt instead of regular table salt. She said it was "more pure" because it was from the ocean and contained more natural ingredients than its iodised counterpart. Our youthful science vs. feeling debate got so heated that we still, to this day as adults, cannot mention Sea Salt to my mom.
So basically, K-Fed's new watch could've sent my mom to a chem class in high school. Then I could use regular fucking salt when I went home over the holidays.
While some celebs say dumb things, there's a rush here to attribute pure motive to this Sense about Science group. It's interesting that the interests of this group seem to conform to corporate interests more often than not.
I don't know enough about them to praise or condemn them outright, but I encourage everyone to take a scientific approach and regard the motives of this group with great suspicion. Who funds these people? Pure reason has no lobbying group or PR firm.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Great news! Next, can someone please convince the politicians to follow this rule too?
"You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
Did any of these celebrities study chemistry while they were in school? Many of them prattle on about the "evils of chemicals", without understanding what they are saying.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
then I'll listen. Hell, who wouldn't?
thankyou thankyou, I'll be here all week. Try the meatballs.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
OUTFOXED. If you haven't seen it, do. You might not agree 100% and the bias may not invalidate *everything* they have to say, but its an interesting foray into the world and power of one of America's most influential (non-governmental) organizations.
Quack, quack.
I used to read Chrichton's fiction, but the difference between Jurassic Park the movie (a dark tale of the consequences of conscience-less and careless commercial exploitation of science) and Jurassic Park the movie (a simple horror flick, where "science" seems to be the bad guy, because no character seemed to bear any responsibility). It was clear to me that Chrichton had become a prostitute, a process that seems to have accelerated lately particularly with his own confusion about the fictional nature of his work. The relative lack of fatalities of major characters in the movie compared to the book really took the edge off of what I thought was the major theme.
h ton-thriller-state-of-fear.html
Anyone who takes State of Fear too seriously should perhaps consider what actual scientists (as opposed to those who dabble in sciencey-stuff) have to say about that work: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/cric
So you really can say about these people:
I am not a scientist, but I do play one on TV...
I rely on Wikipedia.org, generally. In areas where I am an expert (not that many), I find they are dead-on, or pretty darned close. It lends credibility to the other scientific areas they cover.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
That's where he gets most of his mis-information, particularly about psychology. He makes it sound like real science because that's how L.Ron Hubbard spoke and wrote.
Don't ask me how I know, I just do.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
Michael Crichton makes money writing books huge numbers of people read. That's what he does best. "State of Fear" is no exception. People want to read that Global Warming is not real.
Al Gore may want to be president. Even if he is an expert on global warming (which he is), he may have an agenda. To his credit, after Katrina, he charted a plane and saved a hospital full of people before Bush did anything particularly useful. I suspect he may genuinely be trying to help save the world. I did watch the Gore video. It was entertaining, but it took several asides into politics, which I felt cheapened the message.
I strongly encourage those interested in global warming to read wikipeda.org.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Anyone out there remember a site that listed stars and their backgrounds? I think it was last election as stars began coming forward on issues, someone put together a site that had lists of many entertainers backgrounds - it was quite frightening.
Get your tagline off my lawn.
What would be the point?
Everybody knows that "chemicals" are dangerous.....
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
The best way to get a man to focus on the task at hand is to put a gun to his head and a model on his jock. With that for motivation, any secure server can be cracked in 20 seconds.
The problem today stems exactly from this (false) idea that for any given issue there is a "liberal" viewpoint and a "conservative" viewpoint, each deserving of equal time. On some issues this is true, but on many issues the facts and opinions get lumped together in the cultural warfare--and stupidity is aired to "balance" unpopular truth.
In particular with scientific subjects, what you actually have is the science and the spin (in either direction). The severe problem today in the U.S. is the overwhelming failure to distinguish between the two--to have the courage to acknowledge the validity of investigation even when its conclusions challenge your ideology. It's a big reason that student interest in the sciences is waning. Why bother getting an advanced degree when anyone famous or powerful can weigh in like an authority? The celebrity "science expert" is just one more symptom of this overall problem.
Seeing everything through the lens of liberal vs. conservative is counterproductive to everyone but the select few who make their living in politics.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
MK
"To his credit, after Katrina, he charted a plane and saved a hospital full of people before Bush did anything particularly useful."
Good example of bullshit. Bush, being president (therefore operating at the federal level) was restricted by laws that required he ask (which he did) that Louisiana request federal assistance. Louisiana did not. Surprise, surprise, the feds didn't march in.
Gore, being a civilian, was not under such restraint.
"I suspect he may genuinely be trying to help save the world. I did watch the Gore video. It was entertaining, but it took several asides into politics, which I felt cheapened the message. "
And you don't see the contradiction therin?
In a related study, people who are hit by falling cows are less likely to die of cancer.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Excellent points.
Not only is this a non-issue, but TFA seems not to include salient points on which to base this "story." I'm just not convinced yet that the sky is falling.
Additionally:
I cannot recall the last time I needed to cite a celebrity in my work.
"...objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences, subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny." -Gould
Lets have a quick examination of what the experts have been saying over the years :
The list goes on.
Some of you here will know that I've mentioned many things that these experts have had to admit to having been mistaken. Earlier this year the extra-ordinary news came out that 50 times more people die due to vitamin-D deficiency induced immuno-suppresion than die of sun-caused skin cancer. It turned out that those deadly skin cancers are quite rare.
4 years ago there was an editorial in an american dermatology journal discussing the problem that some of their facts (like acne having nothing to do with diet) appeared to be looking decidely unfactual. Anyone with a bit of common sense could have told them that. I even for myself discovered, on JAMA's website, an older study that mentioned that the main food source of the acne bacteria is triglycerides which mainly comes as a by-product of the metabolism of - you've guessed it - sugar (fructose specifically). It would seem that many bodily cysts are fed by triglycerides and sugars generally. Bacteria doesn't usually go for protein or fats.
It turns out that polyunsaturated oils/fats far from being healthy would seem to be carcinogenic; partly due to their high-speed rancidity problems but also due to a strong immuno-suppressive effect (particularly sunflower oil). They are so chemically active that they are said to be an anti-nutrient as they 'burn' away vitamins in the stomach. Anthropologists could have told us that polyunsaturates only make up a quite small proportion of a natural human diet. But while railing against the creationists (who are stuck on an irrelevancy instead of courageously proclaiming Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven) the same people advise us to eat substances contrary to our evolutionary developement : corn flakes, muesli, cereals generally, quantities of manipulated fruit (large, unnaturally sugary, and out of season), buckets of polyunsaturates, margarine, the nightshade family (tomatoes, potatoes, egg-plant, etc). We aren't eating a farmer diet: we are eating an industrialised diet, and we've had no time to adapt to it.
Up to date doctors these days are telling their patients to switch back to butter as the full and awful consequences of synthetic fats have become apparent. The other day New York banned their use in public eateries.
Six years ago the largest diet study, conducted by the WHO, came to its preliminiary 10 years results, which demonstrated that the more eggs you eat the longer you live. I love eggs, but had restricted myself to 2 a week on the advice of these infernal experts. I felt quite angry.
WTF? Some clown with points didn't like the point that was being made so he modded it flamebait. Offtopic I could understand (although the conversation wandered this way on it's own), but there was not a hint of flaimbait in the post...unless you want to count "uninformed asshat," but that really appears to be completely accurate.
Wait...such as what? I, admittedly as a Catholic, am having a hard time thinking of examples of this.
I hear ya. I'm not really sure what the big problem with Paris is anyway. Must be plain old jealousy.
Seriously, if I were that hot and that frikken rich I'd be having the time of my life too. Who can blame her for living it up?
Sure, maybe you don't wanna trade places with her; but you wouldn't likely be complaining if you were dealt her lot.
They also speak up on economic, political, and philosophical subjects, and make even bigger fools of themselves, all too often. I'm waiting for some interviewer to lose his patience with Charlie Sheen spewing his 9/11 conspiracy theories, and just tell him "Oh, shut your stupid pie hole."
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The reason we are ridiculing her is not because her statement is incorrect. Rather it's because she's singled out man-made chemicals. A dangerous chemical can be man made or natural.
Hmmm... Pie...
Brooke Shields did a magnificent job of telling Tom Cruise to go fuck himself when he got on her case for taking medication to treat post-partum depression.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm 23 and Lady in Red was, when I was younger (say, 19), one of my favorite songs.
I can't believe the naïveté I'm witnessing.
;-)
If all you think about these issues is that they are well-meant personal opinions transmigrating - as they will - into political policies, you need to wake up.
The corporate, monied, powerful, those with a voice - are not you and I. We are the manipulated, oppressed, and stupid. Simply put, it's all a big show. Bill O'Reilly is not promoting conservative or liberal ideas, he's just a funny monkey to distract you. What masquerades as Conservative politics is just the spirit of Fascism speaking its usual bullshit. Truly, deeply, contentful and meaningful discussion doesn't happen on FOX News or frankly anywhere in the media. University ampitheaters, hookah bars, artist conclaves, and theaters are bulging at the seams with the deeper meaning of shit, but you won't see it in the mainstream.
The churches and pulpits are just flailing their arms to keep us all in submission to the emerging World Capitalist Fascist movement. We're being fattened for the slaughter, the sacrifice of our lives to the profiteers. Hooking all of us on pharmaceuticals and antibiotics to fix what ails us, generally caused by the sugary, salty, fatty food they got us hooked on from birth.
The homunculus of American culture is swallowing everything in its dark path, while we the barking sheep bicker over which fucking brand of fairy-dust to sprinkle on our legal documents. Wake up. The whole thing is screwed up. We need to get past the need for God and Exxon and Bush and O'Reilly. And we need to outgrow the swill that passes for thoughtful insight in this country.
We meditate as instructed by words, philosophize and idealize, play with ideas and stories, and somehow out of this process we become stupid fearful primates sometimes. Now who's framing the story - you really think YOU are?
A key thing to understand is that Abortion itself is NOT THE ISSUE in the Abortion debate. We know what abortion is and what it does, and that fetuses "want" (in the biological sense) to develop. But the issue is about the individual right to be self-determined and to be responsible for their own personal universal sphere. (Their own set of narratives, if you will).
A woman has the right to *choose* whether you or myself or the majority likes it. Call it "inalienable." To put it bluntly, the law ends where the individual begins. That's why there are no laws barring you from saying or writing or creating what you wish, so long as it does not harm any individual's interests or encroach on any other individual's universal sphere - the personal domain where they create all the rules. Whether anyone likes it or not, the womb is outside of our jurisdiction.
Abortion is even more deeply a technological and a power issue. Humans have become very knowledgeable, and through this have developed the means to do new things, including safely aborting embryos and fetuses prior to the onset of complex self-awareness. We are immensely powerful beings. Humanity as a whole, in the use of its immense power, oppresses every other species in the world, and more powerful groups oppress less powerful groups, and powerful individuals overpower powerless individuals. This is a stream running backwards, consuming itself, climbing over itself to escape... what? To escape the oppression we ourselves manifest.
When the abortion debate is presented in the media you don't get what it's more deeply about. Nothing in the media analyzes our own deeper political-personal-psychological-spiritual trends. No one really digs and digs into them. WTF?!
If you think FOX News - or any major media outlet that wears an official face - represents a genuine, important, coherent, collective point of view which serves the people's interests, well bully for you. I look forward to feeling your warm jackboot on my neck one day.
-- thinkyhead software and media
people learn from what they read and memorize, so the actors reading and memorizing these scripts will, inevitably, "learn" bad science.
whose fault is it? perhaps the production's hired scientist failed in checking all the facts... But: rather than criticizing in hindsight, these same prof's really ought to help upgrade these knowledge-impoverished "textbooks" (i.e., movie scripts and prewritten speeches) of celebrities.
The BBC's point is well taken but ironic in light of their own rather pathetic record.
What's ironic about Melinda Messenger's comment is that she has two bags of man-made chemicals in her body, just to make her look better!
From all the accounts I've read, Leonardo DiCaprio is actually an intelligent person.
Bah. He's no Jeremy Miller, though his attention span might be incrementally greater. I'd bet any amount of money that I could spend an hour alone with Dicaprio and get him all charged up about how an industrial solvent, dihydrogen monoxide, is polluting our lakes and oceans. I'd also bet money that after an hour, Miller would have figured out what substance I was complaining about.
Get me an audience with Dicaprio and I'll try it. (Though I'd prefer an audience with Miller to discuss his suggestions on my pasta sauces. Cooking is far closer to pure chemistry and therefore far more conducive to rational scientific method. Which leads to more experimentation and evidence-based learning than acting, and therefore more scientific understanding if not awareness. And with a few years of culinary school under his belt, he'd better be as good at it as I am at vector calculus.)
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Maybe your Zip reader is broken.
.EXEs).
This is the exact way self-extracting EXE do work.
Its a decompressor program stuck together with the ZIP.
If you run them in Windows / DOS / OS2 or the intended operating system, the OS will start reading the file from the beging and encounter the "MZ" (or corresponding magic signature) and execute the decompressor.
If you use a decent ZIP manipulation software, like "unzip -l file.exe", the software first the very last "PK" field in the file which points to the various important parts of the ZIP file (central directory and compressed data) and completely ignores the EXE at the beginning. That's why, when dealing with multiple-floppy-spanning ZIP, the unziper usually ask the last disk first (needs the last PK record). Note that some unzip-er like earlier versions of 7zip fail to correctly handle SFX.
Parent's idea is just to use a picture instead of a SFX code (and exploit the fact thta JPEG are recognised with a JFIF header near the beginning of the file, like the "MZ" header in DOS/Windows/OS2
But as he said it'a a bad steganography example because one can see the characteristic "PK" headers when looking at the file in an editor, whereas steganography is supposed to be unnoticed by the not suspecting eye (and data should therefore at least be encrypted to make it look more like random noise).
PS: Nullsoft's installer - NSIS - can work the same way using an installer instead of the SFX code. But it can also use other compression formats than ZIP.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
We're just starting to playtest a new release of ChipWits. I notice you're a fan. Email me if you'd like to lend a hand.
Channel Zilch: In Your Face From Outer Space!
Good example of bullshit. Bush, being president (therefore operating at the federal level) was restricted by laws that required he ask (which he did) that Louisiana request federal assistance. Louisiana did not. Surprise, surprise, the feds didn't march in.
Good example of bullshit. Blanco requested federal assistance before the hurricane hit, despite misleading claims to the contrary by the Bush administration. See http://www.snopes.com/katrina/politics/blanco.asp.
So, why didn't the feds march in sooner? Any suggestions?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Please, there is no proof that there are a large number of man made toxins affecting people, why just the other day, Mr. George W. Bush and his esteemed scientists disclaimed any such belief, at the same time that they stated that global warming is still a myth and the Polar Bears are merely gay, hence the dying out. "Ask a scientist", just not those crazy hippy scientists with wierd ideas.
Welcome to the BBC.
Just because "Cancer is not 'roaring ahead'", Joanna Lumley's "We cannot go on force-feeding animals chemicals and growth stimulants the way we are." isn't wrong either.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I could be wrong (I don't feel like looking it up) but I thought that God is disproved by the Babel Fish. It says something to the effect that because the Babel Fish couldn't exist unless God exists then it proves that God exists. However, because God requires faith, being able to prove that God exists denies faith. Hence, God cannot exist (and disapears in a puff of "logic").
Note that I might have missed a second/third level in that.