Thank you Dr. Emoto - not for this though.

After I stopped laughing hysterically, I decided I absolutely had to repost this from Pharyngula.

A way for us to help heal the Gulf
Yesterday we received a letter from Dr. Masaru Emoto, who many of you will recognize as the scientist from Japan who has done research and publications about the characteristics of water. Among other things, his research reveals that water physically responds to emotions.

Right now, most of us have the predominantly angry emotion when we consider what is happening in the Gulf. And while certainly we are justified in that emotion, we may be of greater assistance to our planet and its life forms, if we sincerely, powerfully and humbly pray the prayer that Dr. Emoto himself has proposed.

"I send the energy of love and gratitude to the water and all the living creatures in the Gulf of Mexico and its surroundings. To the whales, dolphins, pelicans, fish, shellfish, plankton, coral, algae, and all living creatures . . . I am sorry. Please forgive us. Thank you. I love you. "

We are passing this request to people who we believe might be willing to participate in this prayer, to set an intention of love and healing that is so large, so overwhelming that we can perform a miracle in the Gulf of Mexico.

We are not powerless. We are powerful. Our united energy, speaking this prayer daily ... multiple times daily ... can literally shift the balance of destruction that is happening. We don't have to know how, we just have to recognize that the power of love is greater than any power active in the Universe today.

Please join us in often repeating this healing prayer of Dr. Emoto's. And feel free to copy and send it around the planet. Let's take charge, and do our own clean up!

David Anselmo

Glenwood Springs

I do thank Masaru Emoto. It was after watching "What the bleep do we know?", particularly Emoto's claims to do with the impacts of emotion on water crystals, that I was pushed to do my first skeptically driven research. Of course, I quickly discovered what a bunch of bunk the claims were and how pathetic that entire movie is.

So, in a way, Emoto is responsible for launching the skepticism within me. Thanks "Doctor!"

Anyway, I hope you, too, had a good chuckle at the 'clean the water with good energy' nonsense.

The new atheist creed.

It's not a creed of the "new atheists," a term which I find so vague and politically pre-charged it was rendered useless before even becoming widely used, it's a new creed that's been generated by the Gods and Politics conference in Copenhagen. Let's have a look.

We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:

• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
• We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
• We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.
• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.
• We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
• We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.
• We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.
• We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Adopted by the conference, Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.

Lots of good ideas in there. It's probably come the closest to being succinct statement that I would actually support as umbrella for my personal perspectives. There's just a couple potential problems with it.

I know what radical theists might say: Why, if you don't believe in religion, is it so prominently featured in the first article of the statement? I don't want to strawman theists, (their arguments are usually weak enough as it is) so I'll admit many of them won't be stupid enough make this case, because it's total rubbish. It does seem to me to be deliberately stirring the pot on the part of the atheists, maybe they did it on purpose. No objection from me though.

My main gripe is that despite the occurrence of several articles trumpeting equality and universal rights, the authors still can't help sneaking in an exception for religion.

We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders)

What? No! Not 'other than for religious leaders!' Why do they get an out? Honestly, if an atheist wants to head up a religious organization, but is completely qualified to do so, why shouldn't they be able to? Indeed, reports of clergy losing their faith are becoming more frequent. Are the authors suggesting these people should then be fired for their lack of belief, despite their demonstrated expertise in religion? Similarly, if a theist wanted to head up an atheist organization, they should be free to apply for the job and should be duly considered. Exceptions to non-discrimination policies should not be made, period. Discrimination is a difficult enough concept to evaluate. Let's not make it more complicated by allowing different gradations of acceptability for similar scenarios.

Oh, facebook.

While writing the last post, I was having this discussion on facebook, which is turning out to be quite the undertaking. Names have been removed for confidentiality. Irrelevant posts have not been included. All posts have been reproduced as written.

Poster1 Status:

Can we quit making excuses for the G20 police force. Anyone who looks at the videos can clearly see they were way out of line charging a group sitting and singing the National Anthem, and kettling inoccent Torontonians in the rain for hours.

We have every right to be at a major intersection in our city.

Me:

Uhhh, you mean the videos where people were unlawfully obstructing traffic?

Poster2:

Pseudosociophy... i can't believe you're serious.... The police in riot gear were completely obstructing spadina avenue, every intersection south of queen, and also were set up to the west and east of spadina on queen in full formation, as you can see. You obviously weren't there, which is why you don't know what you're talking about, but the police had traffic at a standstill for the entire weekend south of queen and anywhere people chose to congregate.

[At this point the Poster1 commented that he thought I was joking.]

Me:

I wasn't joking.

I have no intention of defending or condemning the actions of police or protesters, and definitely not via comments on facebook.

Sufficed to say, I've not heard a compelling criticism of police conduct during the protests, nor a rational justification of protesters who choose to break the law. So, for now, I'll reserve judgment and apply the same scrutiny to *both* sides of the conflict.

If anyone is really interested in discussing the behaviour of protesters and police during the summit, let's have a group meet and talk it through, I'm sure it would be an enlightening event.

Poster1:

Pseudosociophy you were honestly upset that people were unlawfully, obstructing traffic flow at Queen and Spadina? Honest?

I hear college street was a mess today due to Brasil winning their soccer game. Why don't we send in the riot officers? I guess you're never in Kensington on a Pedestrian Sunday or involved in a critical mass.

The videos speak for themselves about police conduct, nothing needs to be said.

Me:

I never said I was upset about people obstructing traffic flow.

You're oversimplifying the scenario by comparing it to farmer's markets, soccer fans and church services.

I'm sorry if your mind is closed on this issue, I think it would be a great opportunity to explore social conflict and activism from opposing viewpoints.

Poster3:

Interesting Pseudosociophy...."A sitter on the fencer."

There have been many a valid and compelling criticism around the conduct of both protesters and Police. It is often those that take no stand and claim to be neutral on a subject, that add to the never ending injustice that is oh so EVIDENT.

I guess we are just closed minded, and slightly off kilter for taking notice of what is ACTUALLY OBVIOUSLY happening. Oh, and of course posting such thoughts here ion facebook for all to see.

Suggesting that you are sorry for somebody for having a closed mind(or really just having a strong opinion) is really arrogant.

Me:

@Poster3 I'm not really a "sitter on the fencer" as such. I'm contesting the validity of the criticism. I never claimed to be neutral, just undecided pending compelling evidence coming in - there's a huge difference. I'm not staying undecided as an ideology, I just find the criticisms of police conduct and statements of protester righteousness weak and unconvincing. What I'm disputing are people's interpretations of, as you put it, what is actually obviously happening - I disagree that it's obvious. If I hear a solid argument or see good evidence I assure you, I will be swayed by it.

I've purposely not expressed my opinions on the subject because I'm genuinely interested in hearing others opinions. However, instead of presenting rationale for their beliefs, people have chosen to attack my unwillingness to conform to their personal opinions instead. Being closed minded and having a strong opinion are not synonymous. Either one can exist without the other. I never said I was sorry for Poster1 having a strong opinion - that *would* be terribly arrogant of me. What I actually meant, even if it was ill phrased, was that I was sorry, not for Poster1, but for the missed chance. I see the opportunity to exchange controversial ideas with intelligent peers as being highly beneficial no matter what the outcome, especially on a topic as heated as this one.

Finally, I apologize, mostly to Poster1, if my comment came across as arrogant. (The miscommunication is precisely why I avoid online debates in public forums.) I'm friends with Poster1, (not just on facebook) and know him to be a intelligent guy who seeks out new information and opinions to improve his understanding of things. I guess I was surprised that this topic was not available for discussion is his mind. In any case, I offer this whole-hearted public apology to Poster1:

I'm sorry if I offended you, I meant no personal disrespect.

[I have to admit - I fixed a typo in this response. I couldn't bare posting again.]

Poster1:

No one's upset, I realize lots of what I said has came from an angry perspective and I value your input Pseudosociophy

[Poster1 is really a stand up guy!]

Poster3:

Fair enough Pseudosociophy....It seems by your comments that you were not in the thick of things....I just found your comments to be making light of very serious injustices that are happening. The comments were too cut and dry. True, you did not state an opinion and yes,being closed minded and having a strong opinion are obviously not synonymous.

"instead of presenting rationale for their beliefs, people have chosen to attack my unwillingness to conform to their personal opinions instead."

Some need not state an opinion to be making a statement. Based on the way you presented originally and based on some of the other comments here, I was not alone in the way I internalized your comment.I really don't think I need to present any rationale...as I was under the assumption that most observing the news, walking the streets and some of those including myself who were forced by cops to stand in the rain for over an hour against common will should speak for itself( and I was not even protesting, I was just passing by an area where there were peaceful protesters). You can also read in the paper or watch the news to hear the hundreds of eye whitness' and those that came forth to speak of the brutality. I guess I should have included that in my opinion.

I am not attacking based on any unwillingness to conform, and really did not see my comment as an attack. I apologise if that is the feeling it gave you. As a person that was directly affected by the miss conduct...I was sad to read about your indifference as it seemed to me at the time. Maybe I was wrong in my assessment.

I do admire the fact that you are open to hearing others, and that you were interested in what others opinions were over your own. I guess you are not arrogant...but with the way you worded things, I will admit that I jumped to my own conclusions...I aplogise for that, and for offending you if in fact I did.

TO END: We all love Poster1 right?? Can't we all just get along....lol

Best to you Pseudosociophy!

I briefly responded, reiterating my un-desire to discuss further over facebook. I was more polite than I'd like to have been. Essentially, Poster3 admitted to having misrepresented my argument and assuming I held an opposing viewpoint. This is the problem with argumentative dialog - unless both sides are versed in logic and have a genuine desire to seek out the bare facts, nothing is accomplished.

In conclusion, the whole thread ended up fizzling on the topic at hand - I don't think anyone is actually interested in meeting up in an environment where their ideas are open to scrutiny. Shame. I still learned something about how to deal with arguers who aren't willing to objectively evaluate their own ideas though, so it wasn't a complete loss.

G20 Aftermath

Here in Toronto we've just wrapped up the G20 police-car-burnin', window-smashin' weekend. There are many issues abuzz, and while they seem to be going largely unreported in the rest of the world, they're all the rage here; so I'm going to weigh in.

First off, I like to acknowledge that there seems to be almost no criticism of the G20 itself anymore. Torontonians seem to have gotten all of our rotting on the actual summit out of the way leading up to the event, so now our attention can be focused on other issues, namely:

1) Those damn protesters and;
2) Those damn police.

The Protesters

I'm not going to waste much time on the violent protesters; these people are clearly idiots. (Incidently, many people have spent time on condemning the acts of the outspoken few, to which I respond; well, duh.) I do, however, have several beefs with the non-violent protesters.

The main issue is that protesters in Toronto don't seem to really understand what 'peaceful protest' means. While we do live in a free, democratic country and are afforded the rights of free speech and assembly, there are limitations to those rights. These limitations generally exist to inhibit the ability of any person, or group of people, to infringe the rights of another person or group. I think, therefore, that it's fair to say, once you infringe on another person's right, aka commit an illegal activity, you forfeit your rights. Obstructing traffic is illegal because it affects other people in a negative way. So, if you choose to sit down in the middle of the street in protest, you're gonna get your ass whooped. (Or at least the get shit scarred out of you.)

Furthermore, protesters need to stay focused. Protesting doesn't mean getting together with your friends and causing shit. Protesting conveys message which is politically or ideologically important to the protester. This does not include standing around and antagonizing police officers. Antagonizing cops is a bad idea for two reasons, 1) They're human and eventually they'll break, and if there's a conflict (for whatever reason), 2) you're gonna lose. I'm not condoning police brutality at all, who would? It's still best to not try and get under the skin of a group of people who are under a lot of stress and armed to the teeth.


The Cops

By in large, I thought the Integrated Security Unit (ISU) did a fantastic job. There have been reported (and youTubed) incidents with individual police officers and at the holding facility, but I'm not convinced it makes a strong case against the police force as a whole.

Here's my case:

The police publicly stated that their priorities on the first day of the summit (Saturday), were, in order 1) Protect the G20 security perimeter, 2) Protect human life and, 3) Protect property. Many criticisms have come to the police for not stopping the 200 or so violent protesters who laid waste to Yonge street during the first gambit of protests. There are two very good reasons for not stopping them. Firstly, it almost certainly would have resulted in casualties, if not death. Secondly, it would have required the ISU to pull a large portion of riot officers from away from large groups to deal with a relatively small one. By doing that, they would have compromised their exterior perimeter and had to mount their defense right at the interior security perimeter. (If you don't understand why that's bad, you need to read the Art of War.)

On Saturday evening and Sunday, things were different. Police had encountered massive public condemnation of their slack procedures. More importantly, they now had that caveat, so important to police legalities: reasonable and probably cause. By virtue of the rioting that took place on Saturday morning and afternoon, police now knew it was a reasonable premise that, left unchecked, protesting crowds would escalate in to violence. So they began to take precautionary measures. Among these measures, they choose to stay to the letter of the law, arresting people for legal violations, euphemistically, that would normally be overlooked. There were definitely some innocent bystanders who were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately for them, it was their choice to be their when the curtain fell, and so they must bare the consequences. To an riot officer, there is only us and them. I challenge anyone, in real time, to face a potentially hostile crowd of several hundred and reliably pick out which among them is most likely to commit a crime next. [Door opens to racial profiling and various other forms of prejudice.] The police did the only reasonable thing they could do, detain everyone, analyze the situation, arrest likely suspects, release the remainder.

And it's not a violation of human rights, since all of them were committing a crime anyhow.

I must say, having witnessed some of the crowd dispersal first hand, when the police moved it was organized, ruthlessly efficient, effective and, it seems, executed with the highest regard for human safety. Mind you, I didn't witness all situations, so there may be scenarios I'm not aware of, but I haven't yet seen evidence of them.

As for the incidents with individual police officers, I wasn't there. Sure, some of them were caught on video, but they seem to be carefully edited so only the actual altercation is shown. There's no context to protester or police behaviour or verbal exchanges between them, so I remain undecided on the subject until further evidence come in.

I think the main problem with criticism of the ISU in this case was a lack of seeing the human aspect of the unit. Yes, it's a paramilitary operation that has objectives and carefully designed methods of achieving them; but it's run and consists entirely of humans. Humans, like the protesters, who react, adapt, doubt, make mistakes and, especially when on the front lines, get tired. When faced with an authority figure who is stifling one's personal freedoms, perhaps it's best to first off, see them as a human being, then consider how their actions might be aiding the great good.

I can't believe Portugal won the World Cup.

Oh, wait. They didn't. (Not at the time of writing anyway.)

They advanced out of the preliminaries.

I didn't mind so much being woken this morning by screaming fans. Apparently it was a good game.

However, here we are 7 hours after the game is finished and my neighbourhood is still gridlocked. People continue to drive up and down the street screaming, honking horns, waving flags, obstructing public transit, wasting gas......

Did I mention that this has been going on for 7 hours?

It's pathetic.

I lived in the same neighbourhood when Italy won the World Cup and the massive victory celebration scarcely lasted for 7 hours. (Although it did completely shut down the street for several hours.)

I'm in awe that so many people have nothing better to do than waste fuel, time, energy and money by causing such a disturbance over a relatively mundane accomplishment. It's not even the quarter finals yet.

And don't give me that "national pride" bullshit. I didn't see anyone fanatically celebrating for their countries during the Olympics. (The neighbourhood has representative groups of Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, Argentinian and Brazilian.) I willing to wager good money that asking any of the horn-honking crusaders what the latest contribution of their country to the United Nations has been, I'd receive little more than a blank stare. This is not about nationalistic pride. It's about soccer and a fanatical obsession with it.

It's not like the people celebrating here actually did anything significant either. They didn't play. They couldn't even be bothered to go to the actual game. From walking by many a sports bar during games, I can safely say many of them didn't even pay much attention to the game while it was on television.

Here's their contribution: a) Buy a jersey. b) Sit around and wait for the opportunity to get in a car, drive around and advertise what a GREAT fan they are in the most idiotic fashion possible. (It really does seem to be a competition sometimes.) c) Fulfill deep seeded desire for idiocy.

HONK.

I'll say this as simply as I possibly can.

If you litter, you're an asshole.

No excuses, no exemptions. Carry your trash to the nearest bin and toss it in.

This isn't about the environment; after all, the trash is going to end up somewhere. It's about social responsibility and everyone doing their part to not make anyone's day to day life more unpleasant than it has to be.

If you disagree, please respond with your address and I'll start using your front lawn as my personal landfill site.

You are not helping me.

I love it when "nutrition experts" - self appointed, mostly - pass on the ole' chestnut of wisdom to "avoid too much of x."

How is this helpful in any way?

"Too much" of something is, by definition, too much. You can have too much of anything - water, salt, skittles, physical activity, in-laws - anything! I've never once heard anyone say, "I'm going to try to have too much of this," or, better yet, "I'd like a little bit more than too much, please."

By saying, "Avoid having too much fruit in your diet," a nutritionist is simply using a vague description of a non-quantifiable amount to sound like they know what they're talking about.

Why is that?

Maybe it's because they were educated in a barn.

It's not as implausible as it sounds. Up here in the Great White North, there is no federal standard for the title of 'Nutritionist'. According to the Dietitians of Canada (seems like a good source): "The term Nutritionist is not protected by law in all provinces..." And, in fact, the Ontario College of Dietitians clarifies the issue (for Ontarians) further, saying: "...people do not require any training to call themselves a nutritionist." Consider the number of nutritionists out there spewing forth advice on what you should and shouldn't put in your body.

That is to say that there's nothing stopping me from opening a "Nutrition College," spending all the course time teaching students to horse-back ride, and then issuing one hundred percent authentic pieces of paper saying "Certified Nutritionist."

I'm sure that most nutrition institutions aren't so malicious and disingenuous. But the point is - they could be. And you'd never know.

The problem here is that nutritionists then go out in to the world and tell other people what's healthy and unhealthy for people without, necessarily, having the slightest clue what that science behind their advice is. I've heard nutritionists say things that are blatantly contradictory to peer-reviewed research papers, and people believe them. It's frightening.

So next time someone tells you what to eat, or not eat under the authoritative guise of being a 'nutritionist' - be wary. Especially if they're using vaguely ambiguous terms that could mean anything. Or nothing.