Of Apparent Truths...

[Johnathan Clayborn]

More and more I am beginning to realize that not everything that can be considered "truth" can be measured empirically. Often we write our own truths via our perceptions. Other times, we allow ourselves to be fooled by things that sound logical on the surface. A clever story can appear truthful on the surface, even if it is entirely inaccurate. I came across an example of this earlier this week that I will share here, during which time I will break it down and explain how this story, which appears to make logical sense, is largely inaccurate.


The story starts with a preface:
This is soooo interesting!! Totally feeling pretty blessed right now and not "piss poor"!

They used to use urine to tan animal skins, so families used to all pee in a pot & then once a day it was taken & Sold to the tannery.......if you had to do this to survive you were "Piss Poor"
But worse than that were the really poor folk who couldn't even afford to buy a pot......they "didn't have a pot to piss in" & were the lowest of the low. The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn't just how you like it, think about how things used to be.

In this first part the author of this tall tale begins with an element of truth; yes, tanners in the ancient world did use urine during the tanning process, particularly in Ancient Rome. This practice was well documented. However, this is not where the term "piss-poor" comes from. According to the Etymology Dictionary the term "piss" as an amplifier dates from WWII. And, in this particular case "poor" wasn't a reference to their financial status, but rather the quality of their work; ie: a Piss-poor mechanic. The first example of such is from 1940: Piss-rotten. The first recorded instance of Piss-poor comes from 1946. And while "didn’t have a pot to piss in" is an idiomatic expression which portrays destitution, it is also not from the 1500's. It first appeared in print in "Nightwood" by Djuna Barnes, which was published in 1936. The story goes on...


Here are some facts about the 1500s:
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and they still smelled pretty good by June.. However, since they were starting to smell . ...... . Brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting Married.

Brides carrying flowers had nothing to do with their use as an air freshener. Flowers were symbols of fertility and feminism and it was believed that carrying flowers on their wedding day would bring a couple luck in conception. Also, bathing once per year was wrong. The lower class people did not bathe at all, for fear that the bath water would widen their pores and expose them to terrible diseases. The upper class people did tend to bathe, but they did so a handful of times each year, and certainly not on any set schedule.


Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it.. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the Bath water!"

This is also incorrect. In many medieval cities there were public bath houses, which were common features since the Greco-Roman times. Aristocratic nobles who had a private bath often had a tub that was made from copper, bronze, or stone, so picking it up to dump it out would have been, for all intents and purposes, impossible. There was no modern plumbing during the 1500s, so filling up an entire tub with enough water to bathe an adult would have been a feat in and of itself, let alone the feat of engineering that would have been required to heat that amount of water. Poor people who did bathe and did not have access to a bath house typically just bathed in the local steam or pond. Now, to be fair, the phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" first appeared in 1512 in Germany. It was written by Thomas Murner in the book Narrenbeschwörung (Appeal to Fools). Scholars question the intent of this expression since the work in which it appears is satirical in nature. In the accompanying woodcut illustration the bucket that the woman is holding is clearly not large enough for an adult, which would lend support to the idea that the author was using this expression in an allegorical manner.

Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof... Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."

Mice and bugs did, in fact, live in the straw thatched roof, that is certain. However, cats, and especially dogs, did not venture up there. The terms "raining cats and dogs" first appeared in the 17th century, not the 16th. There are number of theories about the meaning of this term, but the most widely accepted theory is that it is intended to evoke the image of a tumultuous engagement of a cat and dog fighting which the speaker is trying to equate the ferocity of the downpour to.


There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.

Canopy beds actually existed prior to the 1500s. The first iterations of these beds were used by nobles and aristocrats for two pragmatic purposes. The original canopy beds also featured curtains around all four sides that could be drawn closed. The first purpose that this served was to afford the sleeper some privacy from any other people who may also be sleeping in the room. But, more importantly, there was a mini-ice age going on during the middle ages and this curtain system provided extra warmth. Keeping the sheets clean would have been an added benefit and a by-product of the first two issues, but this is ignoring the fact that most nobles who could have afforded canopy beds would also likely have had solid roofs with wooden shingles.


The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying, "Dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entrance-way. Hence: a thresh hold.

"Dirt Poor" is not even a British expression, it's an American one, so there's no way that it dates from the 16th Century. Dirt Poor comes from the American Great Depression and is in reference to the Dust Bowl.

Also, people didn't add "thresh" to their floors. They kept Rush on the floor. Rush is a type of long, flowering grass. In modern times some places, particularly parish churches, will perform acts known as "rushbearing", where rushes are gathered up and strewn on the floor. While the lower classes would have probably used loose rushes, most higher status houses would have been furnished with woven mats made of rush. The term "thresh" means, "to trample". The threshold is the first place that you step inside of the home. Presumably you would trample the rush on the floor, but thresh is a verb, not a noun, so a threshold isn't used for keeping "thresh" inside.


In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire.. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme: Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old. 

Almost. Yes, most meals cooked in the pot were stew, and yes pease porridge could sit there for a couple of days, but often not more than 2 or 3 and only to improve the flavor. Peasants diets consisted of lots of breads and grains, including beer (beer was actually more sanitary than regular water). However, according to most accepted understanding of human development, such as that outlined by Professor Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel, getting meat would not have been particularly difficult. Cows, Pigs, Chickens, and Sheep were among the first four animals domesticated for food. Even peasants would have had access to one of these on a pretty regular basis. Also, the leftover stew was often eaten for breakfast the next morning.

Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could, "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and chew the fat.

As Dr. Diamond noted, pigs would have been quite commonplace among peasant villages. When pigs were slaughtered for food the meat was often smoked in order to keep it from spoiling, so smoked ham and bacon was a staple of their diet. The term "bring home the bacon" was coined in the United States circa 1906 with regards to boxing, specifically. The first recorded instance is in telegrams relating the 1906 fight between Joe Gans and Oliver Nelson, in which Gans "brought home the bacon".

"Chew the fat" wasn't recorded in print until the 19th century. There are many debates about the meaning and origin of the phrase, but the one thing is clear is that it did not originate in the 1500s.

Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.

Not quite. Pewter could contribute to lead poisoning, but pewter was used for goblets, usually. Rich people had wooden plates, or sometimes stone plates. Poor people had plates made from bread called "trenchers". Regardless of the type of plate that they were eating on, they were not eating tomatoes as tomatoes are native to the Americas, not Europe. They could not have been in Europe until after Columbus returned from America with them. Europe was slow to adopt them mostly because they were unaccustomed to their taste and because they resembled other fruits that were known to be poisonous.

Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or the upper crust.

One example from 1490 instructs people to "cut the upper crust of bread for your sovereign". However, most scholars agree that this was not a literal instruction, but rather an analogy to simply provide some of your food to your lord. The context in which it is presented here didn't come about until the 19th Century.

Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would Sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial.. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a wake.

Wakes had little do with checking to see it people actually woke up, although that was one minor function. In most cases wakes served two purposes; pragmatically someone watched over the body to keep the vermin and small animals from feasting on it. Symbolically some religions, such as the Celts, believed that a spirit could only pass on to the afterlife in certain conditions; if there was a candle to light the way, if the window was open, etc. The Wake was intended to ensure that these conditions were met so that the soul could pass over. Although, more likely, these religious descriptions were adopted as an excuse for sitting there all night.

England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive... So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift.) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be, saved by the bell or was considered a dead ringer.

While there have been historical accounts of people being buried alive, it was certainly not as frequent as 1 in 25. And historically many graves were not dug up and reused. In ancient, pre-Christian England it was typical to burn the bodies of the dead rather than to bury them. This was common throughout most of the Celtic empire. There are many places in England with graves that still date back to before the 1500s. Although there were coffins with bells affixed to them out of fear of being buried alive, this happened during the 1800's at the peak of the cholera outbreak. These "safety coffins" featured bells described in the manner above, but they were not used in the 1500s.

"Saved by the bell" is actually an expression from boxing and refers to a fighter who is clearly about to lose, but the bell rings to end the round before his opponent can finish him off.

"Dead Ringer" comes from an 1888 newspaper article in the US in the Oshkosh Weekly. In the 1800's a "ringer" was a stand-in horse that was run in the place of another horse, or a horse that had its pedigree or name falsified. The "dead" part refers to a precise, absolute, or exact reckoning; Dead-ahead, dead right, dead on, etc. Thus, a "dead ringer" is a duplicate horse that looks like the original. Even the original article cites it in this context: “Dat ar is a markable semlance be shoo”, said Hart looking critically at the picture. “Dat’s a dead ringer fo me. I nebber done see such a semblence."

The graveyard shift is also not from the 1500s. It dates from the 19th Century as well. In 1895, the May 15th, New Albany Evening Tribune has a story about coal mining that features the expression; “It was dismal enough to be on the graveyard shift…” The most popular accounting of this expression is from the sea. According to Gershom Bradford in A Glossary of Sea Terms (1927), the watch from Midnight to 4am was called that “because of the number of disasters that occur at this time,” but another source attributes the term to the silence throughout the ship.

And that's the truth....Now, whoever said History was boring?
History is indeed interesting, but there's no reason to make up stories about it. 

The Portrayal of Self

[Johnathan Clayborn]

There has been a lot of fallout and discussion over the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO a short time ago. To say that there are some strong, political and philosophical disagreements over the issue would be a gross understatement. People are quick to argue about their take on the militarization of police, abuse of power, the requirements for lethal force, and the overall social injustice of underprivileged minorities being discriminated against. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these conversations shouldn't take place, because they should. They're very important conversations to be having as a nation and as individuals. But there was one bit of fallout from this that's not discussed very much, and when it is, it's often a one-sided discussion. So, rather than contribute my two cents to the plethora of opinions about the above topics I wanted to talk about the portrayal of self.

There are many people who are complaining because the media is showing picture a picture of Michael Brown that makes it hard to view him as a defenseless victim. His detractors are using this photo as justification that he deserved to be shot and was dangerous. His supporters are saying that the photo was taken out of context and was hand-picked by the media to deliberately portray him in a bad light. Take a look:


In an apparent show of support for Mr. Brown and as a backlash to the media many people, mostly young African Americans, are posting two photos of themselves, one respectable and the other questionable with the hashtag: IfTheyGunnedMeDown. You can see examples of some of the photos here and here and here and here.

There are two things that I want to point out. First, is that the media is not the paragon of impartial truth that they are sometimes considered to be. I've worked with enough reporters and been burned by them and seen them in action enough to have first hand knowledge of this. The news will always report the story with a slant. And if it's not the slant of whatever major political corporation pays the bills, then it's whatever slant will generate the most viewership. So, you should expect that the media will always use the worst photo of you that they can find.

The second thing that I want to point out is that you have total control over this. Many of the articles talk about these photos and throwing around the terms "alleged gang signs". No. These are gang signs. What other signs are they if they aren't gang signs? They aren't peace signs. They sure as hell aren't American Sign Language. They are gang signs. If you are a respectable person, would you want to associate yourself with a gang by flashing signs in photos? Gangs do nothing but perpetuate violence. Many gangs have a "blood in, blood out" policy that requires violence. You certainly don't see gangs helping old ladies across the street, covering up graffiti or feeding the homeless. Why would any person want to associate themselves with such organizations. If you post crap like that on your page, society will judge you as thuggish. If you are posting such photos as a joke, you need to revise your sense of humor. It would be akin to me posting a photo, as a horribly unfunny joke, of myself in a KKK hood and then being upset when the media circulates that picture calling me a racist. And I never understood the point of flipping off the camera either. I typically don't go around giving people the bird in my day-to-day life, so why would I pose a picture of that on my page? If I saw people walking down the street throwing signs or flipping people off, I would pay them closer attention and view them warily.

Society will judge you by whatever means that they can, and whatever means they have available to them. If you don't want to be viewed as a thug or a brute, or a no-good-doer, then stop posting pictures of gang signs, drugs, profanity, etc. If you want society to view you as a respectable person, then keep that stuff off of your page. It's really that simple. You have the power to control how you are viewed by society. You have the power to say to the world "this is who I am, and this is how I want you to see me". Make a smart choice.

The measure of a man

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Recently I've found myself asking what makes a person a "good person". Sure, the obvious answers are they have a sense of ethics and morals. But, ethical and moral codes are subjective and dependent entirely on the cultures and religions that define them. What is considered perfectly ethical one in culture is not ethical in another culture. But, beyond that, what makes a person a good person? Are there universal traits that make a person "good"?

Respect for other people is probably one trait that I would mark highly on the list of a good person. Do they treat people equally and fairly in all situations? Do they think themselves equal to everyone or do they see themselves as superior to others? Do they treat service staff like human beings instead of servants? Do they treat everyone with the respect and dignity that they deserve, or they think that they own other people directly or indirectly?

Falling right along those lines similarly is compassion. Do they have compassion for others? Are they likely to give up their last $5 so that  someone starving and homeless on the street  can get some food, or are they likely to walk past saying that they deserve it? Do they protect those who are weaker than they are, or do they prey on them?

What about integrity? Is this a mandate of a good person? Many would argue, Yes. I would be inclined to agree with them. In it's most basic form integrity means doing what you say that you are going to do and doing the right thing even when no one is looking. It means being able to live with yourself after all is said and done.

What about selflessness? I would argue yes again here as well. are they willing to go out of their way to help others? Are they willing to help others at all? Would they park at the top of a freeway off-ramp and walk 1/2 mile back down the hill to help some poor sap push their 1974 Cadillac up the hill in August in Phoenix asking for nothing in return, or would they continue to drive by? Would they spend $100 of their own money to buy wooden cross necklaces for the homeless just to give them a glimmer of hope, or do they think that homeless people should have to work for everything that they need too?

What about community improvement/civic duty? Are they requirements for a good person? Do they volunteer in things that make not just their own lives better, but increase the betterment of the whole neighborhood? Is that a requirement for a good person, or does that play a factor at all?

If these general codes are the essence of a good person, how much margin of error is a person, a human being, allowed before they go from being a good person to a bad person? Is it one strike and you're suddenly a bad person? By this criteria I hit every single mark of a good person on this list. So that makes me a good person, right? But what I've lied? What if I've made mistakes? what if I had allowed myself to develop a bad behavior due to an intense emotional stimulus? Am I still a good person then, or does that mistake overwrite all of the good that's within me?

When we judge other people we should take care not judge people by their behaviors alone, but by the entirety of their character and their intent and motivations for those behaviors. Someone very dear to me told me that they didn't believe that people can change. I think that for the most part this is true, but with a critically important caveat; a person's nature cannot change, but a person's behavior can. If a person is self-absorbed and is only interested in getting what they can for themselves, then they will not likely change that nature save for an act of divine intervention. However, if a person has developed a bad habit, a bad behavior, or something about them that is otherwise negative we should take care to ask ourselves if the cause for this behavior can be removed or changed, or if we are going to discard all of the positive traits that a person has because of a temporary situation. Addicts of all sorts successfully go through rehabilitation programs all of the time. They are usually good people who are in a bad spot. But, someone saw enough good in them to help them through their situation and give them a different set of behaviors, a way to change their pattern and their stimulus that drives that behavior. Shouldn't we afford that same chance to everyone? Shouldn't everyone be given a second chance to demonstrate that they have the propensity to change, and that they can go from being good people to wonderfully amazing people? At what point are people resigned to their sins and deemed hopeless?

Much adverse human behavior is predicated by one solitary emotion: fear. What each of us fears is different, but fear compels us to act in strange ways that are outside of our normal character and pattern of behavior. A very good friend of mine once told me that fear is nothing but "False Emotions Appearing Real". I really wish I had remembered that advice sooner, but I can tell you from experience that fear can cast a pretty intensive and realistic hallucination on your mind if you let it and in the process you can ruin the best things that have ever happened to you and the things that matter most in life. If you find yourself stuck in a situation of inaction as I was, or overly nervous about doing something, like forgiving, trusting, or making a change in your life, ask yourself what is it that you are truly afraid of. Dig deep, find the cause, and wipe it out. Fear has never done anything good for anyone and only serves to allow many of the best things to become tarnished, broken, or lost completely. Don't let the wonderful people in your life slip away because of fear. That is a regret that you will have forever because, sadly, there was no real reason for it in the first place.

The Problem with Science

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Before reading further, take a moment and watch this video. It's not very long, a little over 3 minutes: Bill Nye on CNN

This video struck a sour note with me. It seems as though this video exemplifies a lot of what is wrong with our society today. A debate about a politically charged controversial subject? No, not that part. The part at the very end. The part where the reporter says that the "science group" bullies people who don't agree with them.

Here's what I think is the biggest problem; people have opinions and ideas. Don't misunderstand me, ideas in and of themselves aren't what's wrong, no. But when we stubbornly and resolutely cling to an idea because we thought it up at some point, that's where it becomes a problem. As human beings we are subject to logical fallacies such as confirmation bias; I believe that what I think is right so much that I will refute whatever evidence is presented that might suggest otherwise, no matter how numerous or credible. In extreme cases of this, you start to develop wild conspiracy theories to defend my thought. In fact, human beings are so good at using logical fallacies that we have 2 dozen of them in our arsenal (for a breakdown of them check out this fun site: Your Logical Fallacy).

The main crux of the problem is that people believe that science is merely someone's opinion and can be argued against. Science isn't just my opinion, though. It's much more than that. Science is developed through the use of the Scientific Method, which all true scientists use. Sure, there are some crackpot "scientists" out there, but those people are to science what the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity; crazy extremists who do not represent the vast majority.

The scientific method can be a little complicated for people who are unfamiliar with it, but Neil DeGrasse Tyson sums it up nicely:
     "generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules: 
      test ideas by experiment and observation; 
      build on those ideas that pass the test; 
      reject the ones that fail;
      follow the evidence wherever it leads; 
      and question everything."

By using the scientific method we can ensure that the data is accurate. I can conduct an experiment. I can write down exactly how I did the experiment; what tools I used, when I did the experiment, what was being experimented on, and under what conditions. I can take very thorough notes and record my results. Then, another scientist can do a repeatability test and replicate my experiment. If they also achieve the same results, then the test is accurate and the results are true; we can put value in those results. For example, if I look into a powerful enough microscope I can see that water is comprised of 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen. This is true all of water, everywhere. It is scientific fact.

Where we, as a society, run into trouble is when we encounter someone who believes differently. Maybe this person thinks that water is HO2. Or maybe they think something crazy like H2S. No matter how much you try to explain that water is, in fact, H2O, they don't believe you. They employ their arsenal of logical fallacies and they stoutly and resolutely reject the truth with a determination that is sadly admirable. You can't help but admire their conviction, however misguided it may be.

But here's the other part of the problem; scientists themselves. As a PhD student I consider myself one of them, so this next part applies to me very much. Every scientist that I've ever met or read about or conversed with in any way has two major character flaws. 1) We are intensely curious people. We want to know everything. We learn as much as we can about as many things as we can. We read, a lot. We read non-fiction. While the rest of the world is watching American Idol or reading Game of Thrones, we are reading books on thermonuclear dynamics and astrophysics and contemplating the nature of the universe. This is kind of what compels us to do research and become scientists; an insatiable drive to know and to learn, to understand. But, this leads us directly to our other flaw: 2) We have a need to share, to teach, and to enlighten. We completely fall prey to the social bias, projection bias, where we assume that everyone must also share our love of learning and knowledge. To scientists, the idea that anyone would not want know the truth seems incredulous. Therefore, whenever we encounter someone who has a belief that doesn't fit with what we know to be accurate, scientifically speaking, then we are compelled to enlighten that person. This isn't done out of malice or hate. It's certainly not an attack on the person or their intelligence. After all, if we as scientists didn't think that you were intellectually capable of comprehending the information, it would be a futile endeavor to try to explain it to you in the first place. But, most scientists have the same problem as I do; the deep-seated compulsion to stamp out incorrect information. The problem is that not everyone wants that incorrect information stamped out, and that concept is so completely foreign to scientists that they can only react by trying harder to make you understand. It's a vicious cycle. It's not that scientists are trying to bully anyone. If you asked any scientist, I would wager large sums of money that they would say that they are simply trying to impart the gift of knowledge.

Some scientists are getting a little better about this and realizing that sometimes it's just better to leave well enough alone. But, sometimes these people who have such strongly held convictions that their belief is right and science is wrong are also very outspoken. The result of this is that other people begin to believe them and what started out as one person having a crazy notion snowballs into a movement, one that stands in the way of progress and scientific advancement. Scientists try to react to these movements by pointing out that it doesn't make sense or by demonstrating that they actually don't know that much about science. That's how we end up with satirical sites like this one that explains the dangers of water: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html.

For me, my hope for the world is that everyone would be a little more open to the evidence and would actually critique their opinions and their beliefs and be okay with the idea that their belief might be wrong. Scientists do this frequently. They often publish retractions or corrections, such as when Dr. Stephen Hawking, published that he might have been wrong about black holes recently.

The Misinformation Bandwagon

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Admittedly, I don't want the news too much anymore. After being deliberately misrespented by a reporter too lazy to check her facts, or too interested in writing for the ratings, I've become disenfranchised with the "news", especially since they often report only half the story or make a deliberately skewed point. I often read foreign newspapers to see what they report and compare that to what the US news is reporting and realize that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I've been following the news about Flight 370 pretty closely because I find the story fascinating. But, there was another news story that recently wrapped up; Cliven Bundy, the cattle-rancher who had a standoff with the Beareau of Land Management in Nevada.

This story has blown up and made national headlines. It's certainly got a lot of people riled up. I don't purport to know the truth of the situation, but I do know that the news is not the only group of people who deliberately skew or mis-represent data; everyone else does it too. Most of us are quick to jump on the bandwagon and get fired up about something because our friends said that it was bad. Most of us never stop to look at the information objectively or consider the source or the truth before developing an opinion.

Now, I'm not going to get into a debate about who was right or wrong in this case, but let's examine some of the things that happened.

1. The BLM reported that Cliven Bundy's cattle were a hazard to the Desert Tortoise in the area. This is bogus. Back in August of 2013 the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center was killing the tortoises by the hunderds. It was so bad that there was even a Change.org petition to get the killing of the tortoises to stop. That was clearly an excuse.

2. I don't about the allegetions of who paid what to whom or not and I had trouble verifying that with actual documents, so I reserve the right to comment on that one.

3. There are allegations of BLM Officer misconduct, particularly where one of the officers threw a woman to the ground. Let's be real about that for a minute. Yes, the officer threw the woman to the ground. But, the woman was also stepping in front of a moving truck, putting herself at risk, which is a pretty damned stupid thing to do. On the one hand, you could argue that he was abusing her because he didn't let her get run over. Or, on the other hand you could argue that throwing her to the ground was an effort to keep her safe. Or you could just say "Meh, I don't care either way".  The fact that this woman is a cancer-survivor really has no bearing on the situation and is used as a pity-card to get sympathy.

4. There are allegations that the BLM was stealing Bundy's cattle. To be clear, the BLM removed the cattle that were grazing on the county's land, not off of Bundy's personal property as many assert. Bundy's grandfather bought the rights to graze and develop the land, allegedly, but that did not transfer ownership of the land to him. They don't own that land, they simply have rights to graze there. The BLM alleges that they own the land and the previous agreement is null and void. I don't know which is right, that's a matter for the judge, but from the opposite point of view, the BLM wasn't stealing the cattle, they were confiscating the cattle for trespassing on county land.

5. The most ridiculous thing that I've seen going around is that the real reason for the standoff was so Sen. Harry Reid can seize the land and sell it to the Chinese to build a solar-panel farm to sell us energy. Now, the source of this allegation is decidedly less-than-reputable, but given the obvious misdirection about the tortoises, I thought it worth investigating. I did find a page, listed below, about plans to develop a solar-power farm, however, I did not find any information linking that to Chinese developers or interests. Also, if you look at the attached maps of the planned area where the solar farm is to be developed, and compare that area to Bunkerville, where the Bundy Ranch is located, you will see that these areas are roughly 50 miles apart, so it doesn't make sense for them to seize his land for development of a solar panel farm that is 50 miles away.

The important thing to remember before getting all riled about events is to take a deep breath and examine the facts critically before forming an opinion. Just jumping on whatever people tell you at face value and propagating that information forward makes you no better than crappy reporters.  

References:

BLM - Solar Power: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/March/BLM_Seeks_Public_Interest_for_Solar_Energy_Development_in_the_Dry_Lake_Solar_Energy_Zone.html

BLM - Cattle Trespass:  http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/more/trespass_cattle.html

Change.org - https://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-planned-killing-of-desert-tortoises 

Chinese Solar Power - http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/harry-reids-last-roundup/

CNN - http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1119214?ref=feeds%2Flatest



Ethics in Practice

[Johnathan Clayborn]

This isn't the first article that I've written on the topic of Ethics. But this article will take a different approach. First, I would like to start by making the assertion that Ethics and Morals are not interchangeable concepts, not completely. Ethics are concepts that are defined as right and wrong by the societal normalization of acceptable behavior. These are defined in our laws, our professional standards and guidelines, and the infamous Court of Public Opinion. This is wholly separate from the concept of Morals, which are defined as a much more personal belief of right and wrong. This belief typically arises from a number of factors, but the most prominent seem to be familial upbringing and religious influence.

Having established this distinction it should be somewhat obvious that cultures, countries, and people will not always align in these areas. sometimes two groups will have the same basic morals, but will be ethically unbalanced. For example, it may be morally unjust in both countries to kill someone. However, one country may believe that lying your way to the top is perfectly ethical behavior whereas the other country frowns upon it. Or, the two groups could be ethically aligned, but morally diametrically opposed. For example, in both countries dishonesty is severly frowned upon and highly unethical, however, country A is perfectly fine with the practice of infanticide so long as they are honest about it, while country B would never dream of it.

The class that I just started is PSYC 8703 - Ethical Standards in Psychology. I was reading some things on the internet today that got be wondering about the ethics of research, not just in the field of psychology, but research in general. Two years ago I conducted an informal experiment on Wikipedia. I wanted to test the accuracy of the information there (on a general level) and present the null hypothesis that "anyone can change the data", as is so often the case. To test this I set about creating a fake profile. I kept a spreadsheet of each page I visited, what the date and the time was, and exactly what change I made to that page. Some changes were blatantly fake, but others were much more subtle. In 100% of the cases, Wikipedia found my error and corrected it, within 15 minutes. Pretty damned impressive, really. After that they also made sure to revoke my edit access and then they banned my IP address. One of the administrators sent me a scathing email accusing me of vandalizing the wikipedia site. I explained that I was conducting an experiment and had a full record to put everything back the correct way and that my intent wasn't to valdalize anything, but instead to test Wikipedia's integrity. He pointed out that this study had been done already. I pointed out that most scientific studies need to be repeated with similar results before they are wholly accepted as fact, at which point he permanantly banned my fake account after accusing me of being unethical. Maybe he's right, I don't know. For me, it wasn't an unethical action as my intent was pure and in pursuit of truth. How can I independently verify the accuracy and efficacy of the site if they know that I'm breaking it? That test would have to be done blind. Is that unethical? I don't know.

But it's certainly not the first time something like this has been done. I learned today that several MIT grad students had done essentially this very same behavior. They created a software program called SCIGen that will randomly write "scientific research journals". Anyone who has any understanding of computer science can tell that these are obviously fake, but to the untrained eye they may appear legitimate. The three students submitted these fake papers to some of the largest journal publishers in the world, and more than 205 of them were accepted for publication (Slate, 2014). These researchers intentionally submitted ficticious data to a reference source to verify the accuracy of what was being published. They obviously kept records of what they submitted, and they told the publishers about their findings, but not until after the fact. That begs the question, if their test of the journal's Peer Review Process was the same as the general procedure that I employed to test Wikipedia, then would that make it unethical also? By comparison it seems that, at least according to the Wikipedia admin who banned me, yes it would. If not, what's different about their situation as compared to mine?

This tactic is fairly old for testing the accuracy of things. In 1973 a famous psychologist, Dr. David L. Rosenhan began what later became known as the Rosenhan experiment. Dr. Rosenhan and 7 friends and colleagues went to a dozen different psychiatric emergency rooms claiming that they heard voices. They gave fake names and jobs, but otherwise were honest and did not mislead the staff in any other way (Wikipedia). In all cases the testers were admitted for anywhere between 7 and 52 days. Once admitted they began behaving normally again and were all eventually discharged with diagnoses of "schizophrenia, in remission" (Slate, 2006). When he published his findings the article another local teaching hospital reputed his findings saying that his staff would not make those same errors. Rosenhan informed the hospital that they would be testing them and would be sending random imposters to their hospital over the next 3 months. At the end of the period the hospital director jubiantly reported that out of 193 patients they had identified 41 as definite imposters and another 42 as possible imposters. His victory was short-lived when Dr. Rosenhan wrote back saying that, in truth, he sent no imposters at all (Wikipedia). It's been quite some time since this test was conducted, but the realm of psychiatry has advanced since then. There's a well-established, peer-reviewed set of guidelines called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) that outlines the conditions for mental disorders. It was recently revised again and the 5th edition, DSM-5, was just released. The practices of medical insurance billing muddy the efficiacy of this tool somewhat, but it certainly helps in preventing erroneous diagnosis. Some recent experiments have attempted to replicate Rosenhan's experiement with varying degrees of success, but at least one journalist argued that the practice of sending fake patients to a hospital for the purpose of testing their diagnostic efficacy was "ethically dubious" (Slate, 2006).

That really is the crux of the question for today's article; is it ethically dubious to test if a system is really working by knowingly submitting false data to that system to see if it errors out? This is a standard practice in computer programming, but computers aren't people. As a psychology doctoral student, I can say with certainty that people behave different when they are being observed and tested than when they are not. Since the vast majority of times these human-driven systems are operating without direct supervision or observation, it becomes necessary to test them in a manner that replicates their day-to-day operation. This happens all of the time in our daily lives. Think about the old Fire Drills. Did they ever tell you that they were doing them? No. It defeats the purpose of the test if you're ready for it. What about so-called Secret Shoppers than companies employ to test to see if their stores are following proper procedures? They certainly don't tell the stores that they are coming. There are countless examples of this in daily life. If these examples of submitting false data to a system and observing the result are not ethically dubious, then what separates them from the examples above? Where does one draw the line? Is it when there's a monetary value associated to the test? Or when the consent from the test comes from the stakeholders themselves? What about situations where the test subject is being offered as a public service or a public domain? Since all of these are intrinsically the exact same operation, what could lead to some of them being ethically acceptable and others not?  

References:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/27/how_nonsense_papers_ended_up_in_respected_scientific_journals.html

SCIgen Website: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/take_the_shrink_challenge.html

What is a Superhero?

[Johnathan Clayborn]
I was at work the other day on a conference call. During the start of the call the host wanted us to identify ourselves and had us do an ice-breaker by stating who our favorite superhero is. Most people had answers to this question right away, and I gave an answer too, but as the meeting progressed I really started thinking about the question in a lot more detail. What IS a superhero anyway?

To many the obvious answer would be someone with super powers. Some of the iconic superheroes of modern times, like Superman, for example, were born with their powers. Others, like Spiderman and the Fantastic 4, went through an event that changed their physiology to turn them into superheroes. Still others, like the X-Men, are a combination of both methods, but their powers are the result of genetic mutations rather than some kind of magical force. But, is that really what defines a superhero?

Let's examine this for a moment. Superheroes have super powers, sure. But, then again, so do super villains. Look at Magento, for example. He has super powers, he just chooses to use them for different purposes. So, clearly being a superhero is more than just having awesome abilities. A lot of it boils down to the choices that you make; what do you use your abilities for? If you use your abilities for evil or simply to further your own personal gains, then by most people's definitions you would not be a superhero. But, if you used your powers for the betterment of mankind and to combat evil, then surely that would qualify you as a superhero.

So, with that concept in mind let's re-examine our opening criteria; what is a superhero anyway? It's someone who has super powers and uses their abilities for the betterment of the greater good. Right? Well, what about Batman? Here's a superhero who defies that logic. He's just a regular person, granted, he's a rich, intellectual person, but he has no super powers. All he has is cool gadgets. He chooses to spend his immeasurable fortune on developing things that he needs to be able to fight crime and make a positive difference in the world. What about Ironman? Sure, he has a power-reactor built into his chest, but, he's in the same category as Batman, basically he's just a regular dude who happens to have tons of money and intellect. But, like Batman he uses his fortune to help others. Without his suit, like Batman, he's very vulnerable. So, based on these two immensely popular superheroes, clearly having super powers isn't necessarily a prerequiste to being a superhero.

So, based on that information, is it possible that a superhero is simply someone who sacrifices their own safety, well-being, and monetary gain to make a positive difference in the world for the betterment of the greater good? If that's true, then it seems to me that the world is full of real-life super heroes who are overlooked and ignored; paramedics, firefighters, police officers, military personnel. Wouldn't they qualify as superhero status also? Or are the gadgets that they use not high-tech enough?

The Nopocolypse

[Johnathan Clayborn]

I had intended on posting this on the 21^st, but I was actually pretty busy with school and Christmas preparations and all. Better late than never, right?

Obviously, the world didn’t end on Friday. According to the internet, social media, and news outlets 12/21/2012 was supposed to be an end-of-the-world apocalypse as foretold by the ancient Mayans. But, is that really what they believed? What do the Mayans have to say about it anyway?

I would first like to point out that the Mayans have been unfairly blamed for this most recent doomsday prophecy in the first place. Not one single archaeologist or anthropologist who is studying the Mayans has found anything to suggest that the Mayans believed the world would end. In fact, their calendars still continue counting for at least another 2,400 years.

So what did the Mayans actually predict? According the experts; nothing. This was just the end of their calendar. It’s no different than people 6,000 years from now thinking that we might believe the world would end on December 31^st. The Mayan Calendar ended and restarted.

So what caused this stir of internet-fueled apocalyptic panic? It turns out that we did. And, as crazy as it may seem, this trend is not a new one. In my lifetime I have seen the great Y2K scare in 1999. Then, in May and October some people bought into the doomsday prophecies foretold by Harold Camping. Then there was the whole “Mayan Apocalypse” thing. And, of course, there are even more right around the corner.  According to some so-called experts in fields ranging from psychic powers to theology the world will either in 2018, 2020, 2129, or 2240 (see the mirror.co.uk source).

So, when will the world really end? No on knows. Scientists believe that the sun will eventually expand to the point where the heat will kill off every living thing on the planet, boil away our oceans and atmosphere, and then fully consume the Earth itself. But this isn’t supposed to happen for a few million years. For a fun read about doomsday predictions past and future, check out this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

References:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/20/167626648/maya-expert-the-end-of-times-is-our-idea-not-the-ancients

http://www.voanews.com/content/archeologist-mayans-calendar-did-not-predict-apocalypse/1568202.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/01/04/no-the-mayans-did-not-predict-the-end-of-the-world-in-2012/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/mayan-apocalypse-did-not-happen-but-more-1500397

The Paradox of Computer Simulated Time Travel

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Earlier today I was reading a thoroughly fascinating article on Discovery.com. The article (link below for the curious) posited that universe very well might be an artificially manufactured construct created by an Intelligent Design, although not in the sense that most people might think of. While not proposing that God in the biblical sense is responsible for the universe, there are some scientists and philosophers who are arguing that intelligent design might indeed be why we are here reading this blog right now.

The main part of this theory, in summary, is the fact that the universe, our solar system, even our planet all essentially won the intergalactic lottery and had conditions that were just right for life to develop. They argue that if the universe were designed this way, it would certainly explain why everything is just right. Also, even more mind-boggling; if the universe were custom designed for us it would explain the Formi Paradox and answer the question of why there are no other aliens. But, if God is not responsible for this, then who? According these scientists; we are.

Our current day technology allows us to use supercomputers to model, predict, and analyze minute parts of the universe and try to understand it. As our computer technology increases, then the amount of things that we would be able to model would increase also. Theoretically, with a large enough computer, we should be able to model the entire universe.

The researchers hypothesize that our far-distant future descendants might have hypothetically reached that point and are running a simulation right now; a simulation that we are all part of. The researchers even hypothesize that humans might have created artificial intelligence, which created artificial intelligence, and so on and it is this non-living descendant that is actually running the simulation out of curiosity about how their ancient biological ancestors might have lived. While that would conveniently answers questions like the Formi Paradox and the Big Bang, it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

For one thing, as with many poorly written time-travel examples from Hollywood, this hypothesis still doesn’t account for the standard temporal paradox that always associates time travel. If, hypothetically, this theory were true, then it would certainly mean our descendants had to have lived in the real universe long enough to make progeny that would have advanced to the point where they would be technologically capable of even running the experiment. But, if this carefully modeled, carefully constructed universe is indeed a simulation and was intended to make everything just right for us to exist and the odds of that happening are a billion to one, then how, pray tell, did our real descendants come to be in the real, uncontrolled universe in the first place? Surely some place that wasn’t carefully constructed would have had even more risk factors and less favorable conditions. So, the researchers would have us believe that we originally existed in an even more tumultuous reality and having somehow, miraculously survived that one, created this just right universe to model how ancient people lived?

Also, another blaring question that is raised by this; computer simulations, even mega simulations, are governed by a specific set of rules and laws. According to the scientists, there is a test that can be performed that would determine if our version of reality really is real. Suppose they find out that it really is just a simulation, then what? What would be the purpose of having a computer simulation be self-aware that it is living in a simulation? Surely, from a scientific process this would ruin their experiment. This type of experiment is known as naturalistic observation and conclusion about the behavior of the people or animals involved are entirely dependent on the fact that they are not aware that they are being watched. As soon as an organism becomes aware that it is being watched its behavior changes and then the results become biased. So why make this super-elaborate experiment only to have it ruined by self-awareness?

While this hypothesis is certainly interesting, it doesn’t seem all that logical to me. Either way it will be interesting to see what results the scientists turn up from their experiments to prove or disprove this theory.

Reference:

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.html#mkcpgn=fbdsc17  

Chemtrail Craziness

[Johnathan Clayborn]

No doubt I will be stirring the pot with this one, and more than certainly drawing the ire of some, but I feel compelled to continue forth anyway.

A few weeks ago one of my friends on Facebook posted a photo and asked what types of clouds these were.  For reference, I’ve included a different photo showing the same types of clouds here.

I naturally informed her that these were not clouds, per se, but were actually contrails; residue and water vapor left over from aircraft flying overhead. Within minutes another person responded and informed me that I was wrong and these were actually chemtrails. Not having heard of “chemtrails” before, I asked him to explain what he meant. What followed was the one of the most entertaining stories that I have heard in a long time. He regaled me with a story where the government is purposely and secretly spraying chemicals all over the unsuspecting citizens as part of a grand experiment. I asked him for some kind of proof of this and he directed me to a link for a “News” video on the topic (a video that I’ll destroy later). After he called me “silly” because I didn’t believe in his chemtrails theory I politely told him that we should just agree to disagree and ended the conversation. But, this has plagued my thoughts for some days. How can people really believe this is happening?

Being the overly analytical, thorough person that I am I decided to dig a little deeper into this. The one thing that struck me as immediately odd is that the chemtrail believers don’t even all believe the same thing; one group says that the “chemicals” are designed to allow the government to control our minds, another group says that they’re testing biochemical weapons, and the third and largest group believes that the government is doing secret tests to try to control the weather, primarily to reverse or slow global warming. 

For starters I want to analyze the “news video” (in the links below if you care to watch it). The first part of this story that strikes me as strange is that their “chemtrail expert” is just some random guy from Arkansas who collected a “sample” by putting a jar of water in his back yard. Right off the bat, this seems like shoddy investigative work. No records were kept about anything else that was going on when the sample was taken. Not to mention the guy who took the sample isn’t exactly a scientist, just a regular Joe that shows up with some stuff in a jar. But, be that as it may the news agency went ahead and had it tested anyway.

The test results themselves are rather hilarious. The reporter says clearly that the barium levels in the water are “5.8 parts per million, more than three times the toxic levels set by the EPA.” But, let’s examine that claim. At 1:03 in the video he shows the lab results to the camera. It clearly reads 58.8 ug/L.   According to the EPA, the maximum level of Barium is 2 mg/l. (Here’s the EPA Fact Sheet: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/ioc/tech/barium.pdf) Canadians are somewhat more stringent with their pollutants. They only allow a maximum level of 1 mg/L.  (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/barium-baryum/index-eng.php) Why is that important? Well, for one thing, 1 mg/L translates into 1000 ug/L.  The reporter’s lab results show 58.8 ug/L. Basic math tells us that the results are not “more than three time the toxic levels set by the EPA as the reporter claims. In fact this level is perfectly normal; only 5.88% of the Canadian safe limits, and 2.94% of the US allowances. The rest of this video goes on to explain the multitude of chemtrail theories that abound and how barium is bad for you, etc.

Let’s assume for a minute that this reporter’s results were accurate and that the numbers really were 5880 ug/L. That still doesn’t prove chemical testing. As anyone who has taken statistics knows; the lower the sample size, the higher the rate of margin of error. So, the news would have us believe that one single sample from a large metropolitan city means chemical testing is going on? Interesting conclusion, but that doesn’t produce statistically significant results. Not to mention they don’t even consider any other possibilities for how that sample could have become contaminated in the first place. It was just collected in Average Joe’s backyard. Maybe he lives near a manufacturing plant that emits barium in the air as a waste product. Maybe his groundsoil or tapwater is already contaminated due to other, unknown reasons. This is why you need samples from multiple random sources. 

Let’s move on. At 2:25 in the video he says “they even mention Chemtrails by name in the initial draft of Senate Bill 2977”. Okay. What’s the point? Senate Bill 2977 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2977.IH:) does mention Chemtrails, yes. However, the context of the bill in this particular case is a motion to have Chemtrails banned entirely. In this case it’s mentioned in Section 7B of the bill under the “definitions” section where they are defining what they mean in earlier portion of the bill. The bill itself is called the “Space Preservation Act of 2001”. Section 3 states that the President shall permanently ban all weapons in space and shall enter into a worldwide agreement abiding by the ban. Then, Section 7 enumerates what “weapons” are, and section 7B says that “this includes exotic weapons such as chemtrails”.  So, the reporter, in essence, says “they even mention chemtrails by name in a house bill where they’re planning to ban them permanently, so that must be proof that they’re using them”.  The rest of their “evidence” is over 50 years old. It doesn’t make for a very convincing case no matter how you slice it. The rest of the video is so ridiculous that it’s not even worth mentioning.

Since I’ve utterly rebuked that news video, let’s examine some of the other claims made by the conspiracy theorists who believe that these are really chemtrails. One of the more amusing claims is that these chemicals are part of a “grand experiment” to allow the government to control people’s minds. There’s so many things wrong with this one. First, as anyone who conducts research knows; you have to have a control group or a baseline measurement to compare your results against. It has been well-established, even by the conspiracy theorists that these trails appear over every major city in the world. So, if it is an experiment and they’re gassing every major city in the world as part of this presumably cost-prohibitive experiment, then where’s the control data? What city are they gathering the data from to compare the results against? Surely they must have one or their results would be invalid. Not to mention, if they were successful, then wouldn’t they be able to control your thoughts? And if they could control your thoughts, then surely they would stop you from thinking that they’re gassing you in the first place? I know that’s what I would do if I were them. So, it seems rather logical that the fact that this belief even exists is proof enough that they aren’t controlling people’s minds. For some reason the conspiracy believers seem to think 2002 was the start of the “experiment”, but even our government would shut down a 10 year old project that produced no statistically significant results.

The next one is that these trails are the secret tests by the government of biological chemical weapons on the unsuspecting populace. But, as before, this theory is riddled with problems. First, it has the same problems as the previous theory; these trails appear over every major city which means that there’s no control data, which makes any experiment invalid. Secondly, if these “subjects” are being treated at local hospitals then how would the government monitor the results? They’d have to be secretly in charge or have access to every hospital in the world and that just seems slightly more than a little implausible. Not to mention, they’ve been doing this testing for at least 10 years. Surely we’d all have to be hospitalized or treated in some way if that were true. But, I rarely get sick and the few times I’ve needed medical attention it was due to a physical accident, not an unexplained illness. In fact, no one I know has come down with any strange illnesses despite “a decade of secret government testing”, so clearly if this was a test, it’s an utter failure as it failed to produce any statistically significant results.

The last theory seems the most realistic of the three, but that’s not saying much. Essentially it’s based on the theory that aluminum oxide can be injected into the atmosphere and that the resulting metal particulates in the air will essentially act as a global sunscreen and reflect enough of the sun’s rays to cool the Earth. That was an actual theory proposed by scientists, but it was never acted upon for many reasons. First, it’s very cost prohibitive. Last time I checked metal was heavier than air. Any metal particulates that could be introduced into the atmosphere would immediately begin to fall due to the effects of gravity. So, how would you keep them up there long enough to even test it? And, of course, there’s that pesky problem of lack of a control. You could argue that they could use historical data as a baseline, but scientists are divided about what’s causing the Earth’s temperature shift in the first place, so how can you be certain that the temperature changes are the result of your actions and not some other unaccounted for factor? There’s also another problem with this theory; it’s not working. The theory states that they are trying to cool the Earth and slow or prevent global warming. However, all of the current data from NASA, NOAA, and everyone else who’s tracking this data shows that the Earth has been continuing to get warmer. If that’s true, then their experiment has failed to produce statistically significant results and after 10 years of wasted funds it would surely have been cancelled by now.  Not to mention there are a number of scientists and critical thinkers, myself included, who aren’t entirely convinced about global warming. There is evidence in the geological record that shows that the Earth cools a great deal every few thousand years. We know them commonly as “ice ages”. There’s also an old expression; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Is it that hard to theorize that if the Earth cools a great deal every few thousand years that it also heats up every few thousand years as well? It seems pretty plausible to me, and it’s supported by the geological record, but I digress.

What is it that these conspiracy theorists are so afraid of? Here are some photos:

As you can clearly see, these clouds emanate from the plane’s engines, not from some super-secret gas tank. These “clouds” are formed because the plane’s exhaust fumes, which include some water vapor, exits the engine superheated. This superheated gas comes into contact with the colder air at the higher elevation where planes fly and immediately condenses into clouds.  

Some of the conspiracy theorists will say that these plumes first starting showing up around 2002. However, there is an abundant amount of photographic evidence that shows that these contrails were common prior to that, including during WWII and as early as 1918, just after WWI. Many of these photos are linked to from the Contrail Science page in the links below.

It also seems pretty plausible to me that changes in technology in either aviation fuel or jet engines themselves could be responsible for the gasses lingering around longer, as people claim. Or, it could be attributed to a warmer environmental climate. There are several possible explanations that make sense, but secret government testing isn’t one of them.

Before I go, I did also include the links to the Discovery Channel show, Best Evidence, where they discuss Chemtrails as fact. I used to buy into the Discovery Channel and give them a lot of credit, however, they have lost a lot of stock as being a reputable scientific source of information. Shows that they have aired previously such as Mermaids: The Body Found do quite a bit of damage to their credibility.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory  Wikipedia Pagehttp://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/chemtrails/  A page debunking Chemtrailshttp://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2012/08/06/mick-west-owner-of-contrailscience-lies-once-again-please-be-aware/   A site promoting the chemtrail conspiracyhttp://euro-med.dk/?p=23189 Another site promoting the chemtrail conspiracyhttp://contrailscience.com/how-to-debunk-chemtrails/  This page has a TON of information from both sides of the debate (but obviously debunks the chemtrails).

News Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFpF-c8Jgx0

Discovery Video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVFuOZu7Xhg Part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCFoHlwibcU Part 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwvUhalx-lU Part 3

In Search of Answers

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Sometimes the most interesting things that you learn are things that you discover entirely by accident. This was certainly the case for me this week. Before I get to the meat of my article, I beg you to indulge me a paragraph or two explaining how I stumbled across all of this information.

To begin this story properly I need to take you back to 2005. I was very active in the online genealogy circles for people researching the Clayborn family. I was literally getting a few emails a week from people asking if I had heard of this person, or if I knew what happened to that person, etc. Then I had received an email from Dr. Alex Waldrop, a genetic researcher who was overseeing the Clayborn Family DNA Study. I was intrigued. I had never heard of this before.

Dr. Waldrop explained how Y-Chromosome DNA was passed down genetically from father to son with only very minor mutations over vast periods of time. This is the same basic test that courts use to determine father-son paternity. In theory, if you traced your family tree back to your great-great-great-great-great grandfather and you found his brother and you followed the line down through his son’s son’s son’s son, etc. until you found your modern day cousin, then you and he should have these exact same genetic markers in common. Naturally, this type of tool would be invaluable to genealogists because it could provide clues and links when a paper trail runs cold. Dr. Waldrop was compiling a results database of Clayborn DNA and he asked me to participate in the study. I agreed and in a few weeks a kit came and I swabbed my cheek and sent it off.

About a month later the results came back. The accompany report turned my world upside down. While I was part of Haplogroup R1b1 like the Clayborns, my DNA was not even remotely close to anything that even resembled a Clayborn. There was no doubt of my recent ancestry due to strong family traits and characteristics. I look as much like my father as my son looks like me. So then we went back to the paper trail and noticed a discrepancy in the 1860 census and came to discover that my ancestors were adopted by the Clayborns at that time.

Armed with this knowledge I examined my ancestors’ mother, Christina Croy. Naturally, I compared my DNA to that of the Croy family. Much to my disappointment I did not match them either. And that’s where the trail goes cold. Christina Croy totally disappears prior to 1850. Her early life, and the clues about the father of my ancestor are buried in some scrap of information that I have not been able to located on paper.

Naturally, I turned back to what I did have, my DNA results. I routinely search Y-Chromosome DNA databases in the hopes that a match will just appear one day where previously none had existed. So far my searches have been utterly fruitless. I do know that I have two extremely rare genetic markers for my specific haplogroup. One marker occurs only in 0.5% of the R1b1 population. The other marker occurs in 0.3% of the population. I often joke that due to this I’m a freak of nature, but the truth of it is that the statistical probability of some other family that’s not genetically related to me having these exact same mutations is so low that they should be considered an extreme improbability.

I was reading more about Y-DNA research as it relates to ancestry and some of the articles that I stumbled across took me from looking at Y-DNA studies of the recent ancestry and paternal lineage to Y-DNA studies of ancestry of the human species as a whole. I was surprised, but I learned to two important things; first, the taxonomic classification system is far more complex than they taught me in high school, and second, there is a massive amount of evidence that would seem to disprove the very notion of intelligent design.

First, the taxonomic classification system according to High School science is 8 levels deep. It goes; life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. In truth, this is infinitely more complex. Humans are 25 levels down in the classification system. There are also sub-kingdoms, sub-phylums, sub-orders, infraorders, parvorders, superfamilies (like the mob, I guess), sub-families, and tribes. Logically, I should have realized that High School science barely scratched the surface here, but I did not image that it would be so complex. The main reason for this is because prior to that time I did not have a need to know.

The second lesson was the most surprising; intelligent design seems more and more like a far-fetched idea with each passing year. Why do I say this? Because of the large amount of data that exists about other species in the genus Homo.

Everyone knows that we’re Homo Sapiens. What most people don’t know is that we’re actually Homo Sapiens Sapiens. This is to differentiate us from our extremely closely related genetic cousins, Homo Sapiens Idaltu who lived around 160,000 years ago. In fact, artists renditions of the skulls found of Idaltu show that they are so closely related to us that it would difficult to distinguish them on sight alone if they were alive today.

And, of course, let’s not forget Homo Neanderthalensis, once thought to be a direct ancestor of the human species scientists now believe them to genetically related cousins, albeit ones that did not contributed any considerable DNA to our present physiology, thus making them a parallel and separate species. The same thing is true of Homo Erectus.

Among the many other species within the genus Homo are; H. Gautengensis, H. Rudolfensis, H. Habilis, H. Ergaster, H. Antecessor, H. Heidelbergensis, H. Erectus, H. Rhodesiansis, H. Neanderthalensis, H. Floresiansis and the newly discovered Denivosa Hominin.  While some of these species are decidedly ape-like or inhuman in their appearance, others are quite similar to modern humans.

For me, the biggest question that is raised by the discovery of all of these different species is this; if God is perfect, and if intelligent design is truly the explanation for the origin of the Human race, then why were there so many different variations of human-related species? And why did none of them survive? Surely God would not have created a species that he knew to be flawed. It is obvious that scientists today still do not have definitive answers, but with each passing discovery it seems less and less likely that Humans are the direct creation of God.

Kony 2012?

[Johnathan Clayborn]
I was watching the news last night and the reporter was talking about this viral video with over 40 million hits. The video was about something called Kony 2012. Naturally, in typical news fashion, they didn’t explain a single thing about the video other than it was something that everyone should take the 30 minutes to watch.

Being the ever-curious person that I am, I saw the video. Being a compassionate person I’ll admit that I got suckered into it too. Luckily one of my friends was quick to send me over some other information that made me re-evaluate the video more critically.

I will summarize the video for those of you who haven’t seen it. The video brings to light the actions of Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel army operating in central Africa. According to the video, the film-maker first learned of Kony in 2003 when he was visiting Uganda. He met a small child named Jacob whose brother had been murdered by Kony. Kony burned the schools and would steal away small children while they slept. The video shows horrible conditions of thousands of people practically sleeping one on top of another for safety. The interview with Jacob continues and the boy says that he’d rather die than stay alive because there’s no hope for his future.

It’s pretty heart-wrenching stuff. The video explains that the young girls that the LRA steals away are forced into prostitution rings. The young boys that are stolen are forced to shoot and kill their parents and become part of Kony’s army, which is, according to the video, more than 30,000 strong.

The video talks about how news about Kony has spread and that the US government finally went to help by sending 100 military advisors over to Uganda to help train and advise the Ugandan Army on how to find Kony. The video also explains that through the donations of people like you, new schools and jobs have been built and people have hope now.

The video further goes on to say that they need your help right now in order to keep the pressure up and ensure that Kony is stopped, and for a donation of just a few dollars a month you can receive a free kit that has posters and stickers and things that will make Kony famous and make the government bring him to justice, this year, before December 31^st, 2012 so that our children can inherit a world better than the one that we were born into.

Admittedly, it’s difficult to watch that video and not feel something; anger, pity, bewilderment, something. However, as the link my friend sent me points out, not all may be as it seems. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not denying that Kony is evil and should be brought to justice, that’s not the case at all, but let’s look at some of the other things.

First, there are some people who object to the video’s makers, Invisible Children, Inc, to wanting to make him “famous”. They argue that they should be trying to make him “infamous”. On this point I say that the opponents of this video are splitting hairs. It’s clear that the film maker is using the word “famous” as a synonym for “notorious”. Okay, so maybe vocabulary isn’t the guy’s strongest suit. To me that seems like a rather petty issue to argue.

Some of the opponents of this video take objection with the manner in which the message is spread. They argue that by using campaign signs that say “Kony 2012” that they are, in fact, endorsing him and his actions lending credibility where none is deserved. Really? Come on, give me a break. This is a basic marketing ploy. Film-makers do it. The news does it. Car companies do it. They feed you some tiny snippet of information to get your curiosity up so that you’ll go figure out what it is. In marketing terms this is called a “hook”.  Okay, so they see the campaign signs. I’m willing to admit that I might be suffering from false-consensus effect, but I would like to believe that’s not the case. I think that most people would say to themselves “Kony? I’ve never heard of Kony.” And then they would Google “Kony 2012” and stumble across their campaign to bring him to justice.

The rest of the arguments against the video are far more serious though. First, the video claims that “for a donation of just a few dollars a month you can get a free kit”. What they don’t tell you is that this “few dollars” is $15 per month, minimum. Anything less than that and you have to buy the kit at $30….oh yeah, and they’re backordered and they aren’t even guaranteeing that they’ll ship in time for their big to-do on April 20^th either.

Okay, so you decide to give $15 a month a month and you got your free kit. Where is that money actually going? Well, the first thing that you should be aware of is that only 31% of the money that’s donated actually goes to helping anyone. Don’t believe it? Look at their financial statements (http://c2052482.r82.cf0.rackcdn.com/images/737/original/FY11-Audited%20Financial%20Statements.pdf?1320205055)

The video also alleges that they need to provide equipment to the people and the army to better stay on top of Kony’s movements. The video calls this “real-time tracking”. However, according to Page 9 of their financial statements (see Note 1, paragraph 3) it very clearly states that this technology will be used for a twice-daily broadcast.  Last time I checked “twice daily” is not “real time”.

So where is this money going and can you trust your donation? By default donations are available for general use. So they can use them to buy the $751,000 of computer equipment that they own, or the $177,000 it cost them to make that video. But, donors can “flag” or “earmark” their donations to go to a specific cause, like, you know, actually helping out the Ugandans and other Africans that they’re promoting help for. But, there’s a catch; this earmark is only temporary (as mentioned in their financial statement). Thus, all they have to do is sit on your donation until that time frame expires and then they’ll be able to use it for whatever they want. Pretty cool, huh?

There are some websites that do independent verification of charities to help ensure that you aren’t donating to some scam-scheme and pissing your money away. One such website is Charity Navigator. I went to that site and I looked up Invisible Children and four other similar charities who claim to help people in Africa. The other four charities were; water.org, Amref USA, Africare and Children of the Nations. (Links are posted below).

The first thing that I noticed is that Invisible Children has an overall rating of 3 (out of 4) and a score of 51.52 out of 70. Not bad, right? Would it surprise to learn that out of the 5 charities I looked at this one scored the lowest? All of the others were a rating of 4 with a score in the 60s.

Charity Navigator also breaks down where the money is going as well. In addition to being the lowest overall scoring charity out of the five charities it’s also the one that spends the most on “administrative costs” in comparison to the rest of their expenditures.

There are some opponents that claim that the Invisible Children is claiming that they want peace, when in truth they are just war-mongering bastards who want Kony dead, not tried. Their proof? This photo of the founders of Invisible Children holding weapons. (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9tubf1-0gOS0fcRsb7dnXlTuZTzLaiymAt7DA0TrDHMwNOVd0p_FNdCE3IWtkhoDRX68LVB1UndvJcfI6n6_WryJpARm_NER8abAguVKZso5whoQtu6wJERIA1qSBeqTI7GB3p47Dv7w/s1600-h/IMG_2941.JPG) I say, so what? There’s a picture of them holding weapons. Just because they’re holding weapons doesn’t mean that they intend to use them on Kony. A) They’re guys. The vast majority of guys would pose for a picture with a weapon if given the opportunity. B) You can’t tell intent from a still photo that can be easily taken out of context. It’s possible that the soldiers of the army asked them to pose with them for thanks in bring the US troops and supplies over. I don’t know. There’s no other references thus making it impossible to know what this photo is all about. And if they are right and they really want Kony dead? Again, I say, so what? Let’s not forget that Osama Bin Laden was hunted down and executed while he slept for war crimes against America. Why should Kony’s treatment be any different? Sure, the ideal solution would be to peacefully arrest him and make him stand trial so that the ICC can sentence him to die. But, let’s be pragmatic about it. This man is a war criminal. He’s spent the last two decades of his life fighting one group after another; the National Resistance Army (NRA), the Ugandan Army and many other smaller warlords and tribal villages. Based on his prior behavior what in the world makes anyone think that this man will suddenly denounce his entire way of life and give up peacefully?  Especially after two of his top commanders; Vincent Otti and Raska Lukwiya had already been killed in action rather than surrendering.  Allegedly, in July of 2006 Kony told the Vice President of Southern Sudan that he is not willing to stand trial (although admittedly the proof of this statement is sketchy).

Next, I’d like to address this notion that the video puts forth; we should all write our elected officials and demand that they bring Kony to justice and insist that they keep the troops in Africa. First, I’d like to point out that the US had been involved with the search for Kony since 2008, with our assistance to the Ugandan Army in the unsuccessful Operation Lightning Thunder. They were successful in driving Kony out of Uganda, but he evaded capture.

Second, since American support is going on its fourth year let’s talk about something that the video fails to mention; US support is not likely to wane and US troops are not likely to leave. Why do I say this? Because in May of 2010 President Obama and the US Congress passed the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Ugandan Recovery Act. President Obama stated that this bill signed into law US Policy to “kill or capture Joseph Kony and crush his rebellion”. (press release is the links below).  The link to the details of the law can be found here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1067. The funding of this law continues at least through 2014.  So hurry up, write congress and tell them to do what they’re already doing.

Other opponents of the video point out that this video is not relative any more. They point out that it was filmed in 2003, and most people are watching it now in 2012 for the first time. One person gave the analogy of watching a video of 9/11 today and then having someone ask for donations to help with the cleanup effort. In 2003 this story was legitimate and real. However, in 2006 the Ugandan Army pushed Kony out of Uganda and into the Congo and Sudan. Uganda has had 5 years of peace, and 5 years to develop a completely different set of problems. Also, as Dr. Ernesto Sirolli of the Sirolli Institute points out, not all “relief aid” to Africa is actually helpful. (http://www.sirolli.com/DesktopModules/UltraVideoGallery/UltraVideoGallery.swf?vId=33&portalId=0)

Many opponents of the Invisible Children video point out that their timeline to bring Kony to justice is unrealistic. There are 100 US military advisors supporting the Ugandan Army. However, the Ugandan Army is highly inept and they lack training, technology and discipline. The US Marine Corps, arguably the best, most capable fighting force in the world, could not find Osama Bin Laden in the deserts of Afghanistan for 10 years. Thus, it’s completely unrealistic to expect that an untrained rag-tag army of soldiers will find and capture or kill Kony in the Jungle in less than 1 year.

As one opponent of the video points out “it’s hard to take any documentary of Northern Uganda seriously when a 5 year old white boy features more prominently than any of the Ugandan children or survivors”. He makes many other great points too, and you can read about them on his blog here: http://justiceinconflict.org/

Other opponents of the video are quick to point out that awareness does not equate to action. As examples they cite; Osama Bin Laden, a “household name” for nearly a decade before he was killed, and all of America learned his name in one moment. There’s also Saddam Hussein, Gadhafi, and Hitler. These too were powerful, evil men that the world knew about but was unable to stop when they wanted, and certainly not for lack of trying.

The video makes several mentions of the fact that Kony is “top of the list” for wanted persons by the International Criminal Court in Hague. Interestingly, I have not been able to find a single delineated list of wanted persons issued by the ICC ranked by importance or notoriety. Sure, I can find arrest warrant information, and I can see that he is on their wanted list (which is housed over at Interpol), but nowhere does it indicate that he’s at the top of the list. The video also fails to mention that Kony is only 1 of 5 members of the LRA who are on the ICC most wanted list. One of those five is confirmed dead, killed in a shootout. Another of the five is presumed dead. But that still leaves Kony and two more of his top commanders. In this case there is a clear succession of leadership if Kony is removed. The LRA would simply replace him and keep on keeping on.

The video also poignantly portrays the image of Kony’s army being filled with as many as 30,000 child-soldiers, ready to fight and die for him. However, experts in Uganada, Central Africa and the LRA point out that this is simply nowhere near the current state of the situation.  Not to mention that Kony himself has not personally been since 2007. The last reported communication from him to the outside world was in April of 2008 when he backed out of peace talks with Uganda. There is some speculation that he may already be dead.

Probably the most alarming thing about the Kony 2012 video can be summarized by the follow quote by German Philosopher Frederick Nietzsche: He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.  What does that have to with Kony? Let’s recap; Kony is evil because he press-gangs children into his army, he’s bad because he kidnaps women and girls and rapes them and prostitutes them out, and he’s bad because he steals valuable resources from the people who live in the area. The Kony 2012 video asks you to support them so that they can help the Ugandan Army catch Kony before he causes any more harm or conflict in Congo or Sudan.

First of all, Kony isn’t causing much conflict in Sudan. In fact, Sudan gave Kony military support to fight against the Ugandans. Sudan only withdrew support for Kony after the ICC issued a warrant for his arrest. Maybe it’s the whole, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but Kony isn’t causing trouble against Sudan, at least not right now anyway.

Secondly, let’s turn the focus onto the soldiers tasked with hunting Kony down. In 2001 the UN released a report stating that the Democratic Republic of Congo was guilty of forcibly recruiting child-soldiers into its army. The Ugandan People’s Defense Force also forcibly recruited young children into their army as well, according to the same UN Report. Hold the phone, isn’t that the exact same thing that Kony is guilty of?

But Kony killed innocent civilians and raped all kinds of women. As it turns out, so did the UPDF. In another report from the UN the armies of Uganda and Rwanda were responsible for crimes such as mass rape, targeted killing of civilians, and “other crimes against humanity”. These crimes took place between 1993 and 2003. And allegedly, after 2006 during their hunt for Kony the UPDF is responsible for looting diamonds, timber and other natural resources out of the Congo.

So, as the Kony 2012 video shows, it’s perfectly okay to use one group of people who commit crimes and atrocities to hunt down another group who commit the exact same crimes so long as someone profits from it in the end.

UPDATE:
The LRA attacked a small village in the Congo on March 7th. But, as this article explains, the LRA is now only down to around 200 soldiers, which is certainly a far cry from the 30,000 that the video alleges. Here's the article: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Keep-Calm/2012/0307/Lord-s-Resistance-Army-After-long-silence-the-US-tracked-rebels-attack

References:

www.kony2012.com

http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/07/on-kony-2012-2/?fb_ref=newpromocopy

http://c2052482.r82.cf0.rackcdn.com/images/737/original/FY11-Audited%20Financial%20Statements.pdf?1320205055

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8875 (water.org)

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4943 (AMREF USA)

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3220 (Africare)

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8392 (Children of the Nations)

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12429  (Invisible Children)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-signing-lords-resistance-army-disarmament-and-northern-uganda-r

http://ilto.wordpress.com/2006/11/02/the-visible-problem-with-invisible-children/

http://www.sirolli.com/DesktopModules/UltraVideoGallery/UltraVideoGallery.swf?vId=33&portalId=0

http://chrisblattman.com/2011/11/21/what-you-should-be-reading-if-you-want-to-understand-the-us-and-the-lords-resistance-army/

http://justiceinconflict.org/

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136673/mareike-schomerus-tim-allen-and-koen-vlassenroot/obama-takes-on-the-lra?page=show

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CSCOAL,,COD,,498806012d,0.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/UN-Congo-Report-Released-Amid-Protest-from-Uganda-Rwanda-104165814.html

http://www.interpol.int/Wanted-Persons

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/joseph_kony/index.html