One of the 100 top scientific stories in this month's "Discover Magazine" is about an experimental city being built outside Abu Dhabi, which is in the United Arab Emirates.  This is a $20 billion city being constructed for about 40 000 residents.  The intention is to make it an ultra-green city using alternative power and even electric cars.  That's a lot of money, but it will provide a place to experiment with alternative technologies which may pave the way of the future. 

   OK, so somebody tell me why this is happening in the UAE!  Sure, they have the money to do it, but that money, ironically, is coming from good old oil.  Western countries want to liberate themselves from oil, -yes.  But they also want to end dependence on the Middle East.  Why are we not seeing an investment like this in the U.S., or in Germany, or even in Japan?  The logical outcome of this would be that Middle East investments in new technologies will ensure that they keep a stranglehold on the energy consumption of the rest of the world.  Smart business on their part, but not really smart for the rest of us. 

   The U.S.A. used to be the innovators of the world, but are so busy confusing science and religion that they're slipping out of the game.  Canada has the opportunity to step in and make some major things happen, but I think we're still too small minded.  Watch China and India.  I'm sure they'll see the opportunities and jump on it before too long.

   I don't know about the other countries, but one thing that UAE and China have that is going to be a huge advantage for them is that their governments have no qualms about concentrating resources at the top.  Advancements have always been easier when rulers aren't afraid to concentrate resources.  During the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, wealth was concentrated in the aristocracy.  If it hadn't been, the advances made in this period of history never would have happened.  If the rulers had been concerned with spreading the wealth evenly and uplifting the masses, we'd probably still be throwing our human waste out the window into the street.  We like to think that human history has been a progression away from aristocracy, towards a more liberal equality, but that only really works if we have a society that is enlightened and advanced enough to make it work.  We may be getting there, but we're not there yet, and competition from those that aren't afraid to designate resources (even at the cost of their populations) will have the upper hand.

   I'm not really sure what that means.  It's just food for thought. 

From Grasping Reality With Both Hands

   Fifty years ago we thought that technology and innovation would result in shorter work hours and a higher standard of living.  Instead everyone is working longer hours, two incomes are required to maintain high standards in most households and this is all in spite of higher productivity.  What happened?? 

   This graph points to at least one strong factor in this irony.  Look at bank profits compared to other corporate profits. And don't forget that the wages of the average bank workers, such as the tellar, have not increased beyond any normal expectation.  The extra profits are clearly going to the top.  The higher level financial moguls are siphoning off the benefits of everyone's increased work and production.  That really would be less of a slap in the face if they really deserved it, however based on the recession of the past few years and the fact that this same financial aristocracy is largely responsible for it, I for one don't think it is deserved.

   When you look at this graph, don't miss the dip at the recession, -and the immediate recovery.  Compare it to the more moderate dip in the non-commercial profits (and the lack of recovery), indicating that the crisis was very much caused and perpetuated by financial institutions.  Unemployment in the non-commercial sector was fallout from financial sector failures, -not the other way around.

The shocker of the season will be dropped by WikiLeaks on Dec. 25.  "The Santa Documents" will expose Santa Claus and his corrupt doings at the North Pole for the world to see.

A preview can be found on MYSpace.

Stories include the real "naughty list", employment irregularities and the revelation that Rudolf is really "Rudy", Santa's prime enforcer.  Be sure to check it out!

Well this is very disturbing as, to me, it sums up the very real dangers of fundamentalist religious indoctrination

   It seems that a new Gallup Poll identifies almost 40% of Americans as rejecting evolution and believing in the Creationist view that God created man as he/she is about 10 000 years ago.  I feel that this has really dangerous implications for the following reasons:

   1.  To believe the Creationist view, it is necessary to suspend your belief in science and reason, ignoring all of the theories involving geology, anthropology, carbon dating, dinosaurs, etc. 

   2.  To do that, it is necessary to marginalize intelligence and reason in your mindset.  This would explain why the intelligencia in the States is under fire and being criticised, and in some cases, ridiculed.

   3.  When you look more carefully at the data, you see that belief in creationism is inversely related to education.  Among those with a high school education or less, Creationism is supported at a rate of about 47%, while evolution is supported by those with a postgraduate education at about 45%.  Once again, it is going to be necessary for the uneducated people believing in Creationism to reject and marginalize the intelligent in order to maintain their beliefs.  This is a dangerous situation, and as I said, is already happening.

   4.  Further research shows, interestingly, that the United States is the country that has the lowest percentage of people believing in evolution, and the highest in Creationism, where a recent poll identifies only 35% believing in evolution.  (The poll is over a decade old but I can't find anything more recent.)  The only country that also has a level below 50% is Poland.  Most countries, like the UK and Germany are upwards of 65% to 80%.  (Canada is not mentioned in this poll.)  This means that among the developed western countries, the US sits in a unique position of extremism.  And they're the ones making foreign policy decisions involving Muslim countries. 

   5.  These anti-intellectual, reason rejecting, dogmatic creationists tend to be overwhelmingly Republican.  (It's right there in the data.)  Again, this puts American politics in the grips of religious extremism. 

   6.  Those with strong religious leanings are more likely to attend church regularly and send their children to religiously motivated schools and youth groups.  (Check out the movie "Jesus Camp")  In those settings, youth is being indoctrinated at an impressionable age, to perpetuate all of the things I've mentioned above.  People outside of that goldfish bowl (i.e. more liberal individuals, more educated families and those more inclined to believe in evolution and science) are the ones who are more likely to take advantage of public education and to promote open-mindedness.

   I have no real quarrel with religion, as such.  I have religious beliefs, although they are not "traditional".  Evolution is probably not perfect.  What I oppose, and what often scares me, are the kinds of things I've summarized above.

     I've made a few comments recently about the anaemic state of journalism.  Here's a story spotlighting that and WikiLeaks.

     I understand that Michael Moore may not be the most esteemed source of valid information, but in this case the facts seem to be in his favour.  On Jan. 31, 2008, just after the nomination of SICKO for an Academy Award, the American State Department released an internal memo claiming that SICKO was banned in Cuba because Cubans were upset and rebelling since they actually were not receiving the kinds of health benefits described in the film.  This was a total lie, as the Cuban government had even sought permission for and had aired SICKO on national television after it had been playing in Cuban theatres for months.  So what?  I guess this really just amounts to a case of the U.S. government lying to itself, so it really just becomes a matter of integrity and shouldn't be a big issue.  (Unless you remember that the war on Iraq was, more or less, a result of the same process of a government lying to itself.)

     As interesting as that is, it's not the main point.  Last Friday, WikiLeaks exposed this inaccurate memo to the press.  What did the press do?  They reported it as fact, without understanding the irony or checking their information.  Any brief Google search would have shown them that the information was false (and probably have given them a much better story).  Wow!  WikiLeaks handed them a lie and they turned it back into a truth.  Therein may lay the real damage that can be done by WikiLeaks, -the misinterpretation of powerful information by a stupid and lazy news media.

     Moore get's the final word, as quoted from his Blog:

     "OK, so we know the media is lazy and sucks most of the time. But the bigger issue here is how our government seemed to be colluding with the health insurance industry to destroy a film that might have a hand in bringing about what the Cubans already have in their poverty-ridden third world country: free, universal health care. And because they have it and we don't, Cuba has a better infant mortality rate than we do, their life expectancy is just 7 months shorter than ours, and, according to the WHO, they rank just two places behind the richest country on earth in terms of the quality of their health care."

   This month's issue of DISCOVER Magazine has is one I always look forward to, summarizing the 100 most significant scientific stories of the year.  It actually results in a little highly needed optimism as it displays some of the most extraodinary accomplishments of our species.

   One story that was prominent back in January at one of the big climate research conferences, was the hit taken by Global Warming Theory.  Leaked e-mails and other documents cast doubt on the integrity of the scientific community, claiming that they'd exaggerated their findings to make Global Warming appear more extreme than it really was.  It was a coup for the Global Warming sceptics, who, oddly, also seemed to support big oil and coal.

   That story got a lot of press and was sensationalized.  What didn't get a lot of press was the subsequent story that in five separate investigations following the accusations, the vast majority of the research called into question was exonerated.  The idea that Climate Research as "broken" was totally proven false.  This, however, never got significant press coverage and exposure.  (A very few pieces of research were found to need some revision, however this is true of any body of research.)

   Here is another example of our media journalists failing in their job.  Whether it was because the story wasn't as dramatic as the original allegations, or whether the media was compromised by their sponsors, the fact remains that on this important issue it failed to be objective and to provide the public with unbiased information.  They were ready to condemn Climate Change Research, but not to vindicate it when the evidence clearly proved that was justified, leaving the public with an inaccurate impression, -which just happens to coincide with the wishes of some big carbon producing industries. 

     I don't get a live TV feed, so as a result most of my vid watching is on DVD or thumb drive.  So, I feel kind of odd weighing in on this topic, but...

     It seems that there is a serious flaw in the way TV networks interpret the ratings that they collect.  People who tend to PVR their shows don't seem to count.  As a result, shows like Fringe (which is at risk of cancellation) or SG:U (which was just cancelled), that find themselves stacked against sports playoff games or Dancing With The Stars (which seems to be on, in one incarnation or another, every night) are at a disadvantage.  It discriminates against "nerds" who have the intelligence and inclination to record their favourite shows for alternative viewing times because they want to let (or are forced to let) another family member watch Dancing With The Stars or WWF.  So the shows watched by those most inclined to use technology are the ones that will suffer.  Apparently, you have to watch the program on the original broadcast in order to count.  How archaic!  Another example of TV and Radio shooting itself in the foot.

     The natural consequence of such a policy is for TV viewing to devolve into a long chain of sports events and cheap, shallow reality TV.  And then people will complain about how hollow TV is (-well, as if they already aren't-) and the networks will scratch their heads in puzzlement as everyone starts watching the Internet.  Technology marches on, and those not capable of keeping step will fall behind and get lost.  (Am I overdoing the metaphor?)  Such was the case with the music industry and it's currently happening with radio.

     If The Social Network can give us two hours of Mark Zuckerberg and end up as one of the most acclaimed movies of the year, it's only a matter of time before we see the life of Julian Assange up on the big screen.

     For one thing, it's going to be a much better story.  While I thought that The Social Network was a great film, it was obvious that it struggled with the challenge of making Zuckerberg's life interesting enough to be engaging for a feature film.  You can only do so much with narcissism.  Not true of Assange (although the narcisssim will almost definitely make a reprise).  The teenage life, alone, of Julian Assange is packed full of hacker daring and exploits that was, itself, prime story material about a decade ago.  And that's just the beginning. 

     For those who haven't clicked in yet, Julian Assange is the leader of WikiLeaks, which released Gigs of classified government and military documents this past summer, creating serious diplomatic embarrassment.  He has been in the news this week for his arrest in England and his being granted bail today.  And if Hollywood writers haven't started salivating yet, his arrest is for a sex scandal in Sweden, of all places, -a country well know for sexual tolerance.  It seems that he broke some law having to do with "sex by surprise".  Come on!!  If it's true, it's just another juicy angle to the story, -but really!!

      What few people realize is that just a few years ago, Assange and WikiLeaks was praised by Amnesty International for exposing corruption on Somalia and Iran.  But, it seems that when the shady secrets of major western powers are spotlighted, the shoe's on a different foot.  Then he becomes a traitor and the leaks become "dangerous to national security"!  Well there's a lot of debate about that, as to whether any real damage was done other than to the pride of the diplomatic community.  Assange himself states that this is new ground for them and that they may have released information in as effective a manner as they could have.  That's probably an understatement.  What we can be sure of is that so many high level fingers got burned over these leaks that it will be impossible to find an objective representation of Assange in the western media.

     Is Assange a traitor or a hero?  If the leaked information truly endangers people or diplomatic processes, then he's been, at the very least, careless.  But the general idea of bringing dirty laundry into the light, no matter who's it is, can only be applauded.  Governments should not operating with secrecy and impunity.  It's too tempting.

     The bottom line is that WikiLeaks is just doing the job that good investigative and objective journalism should be doing, but isn't.  Also, this will force governments to, at least, beef up their security, and, at best, operate with a little more integrity knowing that they may be under scrutiny.

     Personally I think that Assange should be "Man Of The Year".  If what he says is true, the best is yet to come.  Hopefully, the powers that be won't use this as an excuse to shackle the freedom of the Internet, and we'll still be able to see the other goodies he has in store for us.  The next leak involves a major American financial institution.  I wonder what that could be...

   The comments below about Christianity and Conservatism in the south are not meant to be statements against either.  They are statements against hypocrisy and "double think".  The latter of these was a term made famous in Orwell's novel, 1984.  From the novel, double think is:

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

   In this lies the danger not only of Christianity and Conservatism, but of any ideology when the people are deceived. 

   I am amazed at seeing some of the news stories coming out of the States and to a lesser degree Canada.  A country that prides itself on non-invasive, independent freedom is sanctioning the use of machines at airports that take naked pictures of people, -in the name of public safety resulting from that fear of terrorism which is carefully nurtured and used as a tool.  A U.S. Republican party, largely voted in by lower economic base is blocking the extension of U.I. benefits to the 9.3% of unemployed Americans in this economic crisis until the Democrats agree to tax cuts for people making over $250 000. 

   And we're not immune in Canada.  Politicians win on "law and order" platforms in a time when most crime is on the decline.  The new mayor of Toronto convinced everyone that he was going to clean up the fiscal mess of the city, when it turns out that Toronto had one of the best financial situations of any city in Canada. 

   So many issues of public debate, election and otherwise, have become a matter of who can get the best spin-masters to present the facts in the filtered and biased way that provides an advantage.  It seems to me that the guardian against that is supposed to the news media.  The "Fifth Estate" is supposed to, through responsible journalism, safeguard us against those who want to mislead us and present us with compromised facts.  Instead, we have FOX News. 

     Last year about this time the previous version of this blog ended up in a long discussion about scientific and medical research.  The discussion started about the controversy around flu shots and whether or not we should trust the medical "expert" opinion to take them.  A lot of the discussion focused on the possible links between vaccines containing mercury and the causes of autism.  Unfortunately, the discussion kind of bogged down there, with the participants more interested in beating to death one small issue rather that examining the bigger picture.  The discussion turned to talking about the nature of scepticism, with the self proclaimed sceptics seemingly being sceptical of anything that questioned the status quo and supporting hard scientific research rather than questioning it.

     Narrowing the discussion to any link between autism and vaccines misses the main point, regardless of whether that link eventually proves to be true or false.  The big picture is the state of medical and pharmaceutical research, and whether it should be trusted.  The big question is whether medical and pharmaceutical research is motivated by public interest or by profit.

     Last month's Discover magazine contained a great article titled "Reckless Medicine", which sums up the criticisms and scepticism that I was trying to focus on last year.  Its research shows that "Less than half the surgeries, drugs and tests that doctor's recommend have been proved effective."  While a lot of money goes onto research and development in order to get a product or procedure approved, less than 1 % of funding goes into any follow up research to judge whether it is effective, -and the little research that is done strongly suggests that effectiveness is random and unreliable.  Drugs are misrepresented to doctors.  Medical procedures often cause more harm in side effects than the good they are intended to do.  Many surgeries are completely unnecessary.  Discover is admittedly a lay magazine, but this article is well researched and shows with solid arguments that depending on medical experts to make scientifically sound decisions about medical treatment (including whether or not taking the flu vaccine is advisable) is far from a sure thing. 

     Sceptics should question the status quo, not the alternatives.