...and the bleat goes on

In ‘Scapegoating Blackwater,’ Ted Rall misuses the sometimes short-sighted and ignorant cowboy actions of some private contractors as a launch pad to fly off on a diatribe against despicable incidents of inhuman behavior by our soldiers in Iraq. The article has in fact not much to say about how Blackwater is or isn’t being scapegoated; but that doesn’t seem to be his intent. Rather the title and first few paragraphs are current enough that they allow Rall to seque into the issue of misbehaving troops, an article that may otherwise leave him editorially abandoned due to forced disinterest.

Rall’s a smart guy and sometimes a very good writer. He shouldn’t have let himself fall into the trap of generalizing the actions of a few to the judgment of many. That’s so 1973. By allowing his anger about the war to make him lazy, both he and his editor let slip a really good opportunity to talk about differing standards for soldiers and private contractors, who those contractors are, and why those differences exist. I’d like to see more short articles like that, as it would help more people learn how mercenaries are changing the face of conflict for our country and decide whether they’re doing more harm than good (my bet is that they’re doing much more harm than good at, as Rall points out, nine times the price).

On another note, I’m not sure how I feel about blatantly anti-Iraq-war types like Rall (and myself) detailing the inevitable grisly effects of war, or the occasionally horrid actions of people in uniform. Part of me wants to print them on every billboard and rub every pro-war person’s nose in it, especially the chickenhawks, and say ‘This is what you’ve wrought. This is what happens every time no matter who and for what they are fighting. Don’t you read?! This is what they mean when they talk about unleashing the dogs of war.’ But the other part of me, especially when reading things like Rall’s article, doesn’t appreciate the manipulative nature of such compelling visceral detail when it’s wielded simply to make me agree with the author. It’s a shabby use of already shabby deaths, and I continue to hope that not just we as Americans but all people can rise above the pathetically tribal exploitation of dead bodies, be they hanging from bridges or from newspaper printing machines.

theory hypothesis

The meaning of the word ‘theory’ has been diluted and misappropriated because of confusion and laziness: confusion on the part of most of us about what the word really means, and laziness of those who know what it means but use it interchangeably with the word ‘idea.’

If you look up ‘theory’ in the dictionary, you’ll likely see a range of meanings, from ‘scientifically acceptable general principle’ to ‘conjecture.’ ‘Theory,’ in the scientific world, does not mean ‘idea,’ ‘hypothesis,’ or ‘assertion.’ Scientifically speaking it means, from here, ‘a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.’ Ideas, hypotheses, and assertions are merely that – they may warrant further consideration, but hold no inherent truth simply from having been thought. If it hasn’t been tested in the real world through quantifiable observation it’s just a guess; maybe a well-informed guess, but not a theory.

This problem arose due to science’s use of the word, which has changed greatly. While scientists used to feel safe declaring a fact believed to have universal truth a law, we’ve learned since then that there likely aren’t any such things. Hence, theories have shifted from the realm of ‘tested but still incomplete hypothesis’ to ‘tested and as close to universal as we are likely to get.’ But our language outside the laboratory has yet to catch up, creating a discrepancy between what different people mean when they use the exact same word.

Why is this important? Because people tend to be intellectually lazy (this is just a thought, not a theory, and a gross generalization at that, but a little testing would likely bear me out). This would be only mundane if we lived in a rational society that valued reason in public discourse and education, and kept our beliefs behind our front doors. Unfortunately, our society is so charged with public faith, partisan politics, and suspicion of intellectuals that laziness of thought is corrosive as it actively aids those that would undermine reason and promote pernicious agendas which require a lack of critical thinking to support. Additionally, science and technology are pervasive (and mostly beneficial) in our society, and un-scientific references using the same word can have a major impact on beliefs and policies that in turn affect our lives. If one believes that ‘theory’ means ‘idea’ than what’s to stand in the way of the acceptance of what a creationist has labeled as their theory? And, if they’re both theories, wouldn't creationism at least merit as much attention as evolution? This isn’t semantic quibbling – it’s a pivot point for the type of society we wish to foster. So, to get to the point of this little rant: in conversation, don’t use the word ‘theory’ when you mean anything less precise.

TV or not TV...

There is so much REALLY high quality stuff available to watch online, that aside from a couple of favorites which I normally miss anyway, there's little reason to tune to anything on our TV. I watched the first third of Nova's three-hour The Elegant Universe last night - the special on string theory is available in its entirety at the link, accompanied by articles and demos.

Videotaped courses and podcasts are even more varied - there are YouTube and UC Berkeley's recent offerings (including Sergey Brin talking about search engines and 'Physics for Future Presidents') and a wealth of other stuff I've found through OpenCulture.

GRAM to be LEED Gold

The new building housing the Grand Rapids Art Museum won't be the first art museum to receive LEED certification—The Provincetown Art Assoc. and Museum in Massachusetts received a silver cert in 2006—but it will be by far the largest at fifteen times the size of Provincetown's 9,000 sq ft addition, and greener, with a gold cert, the second highest level in the US Green Building Council's ratings program.

Challenges to going green are unique for an art museum as temperatures and humidity must be kept constant. The $60M GRAM will be using louvered skylights, concrete's thermal properties, a naturally-cooled fresh air 'sink,' rainwater cache for the toilets, and FSC-certified wood. From a March NYT article:

When the building opens, Mr. Yantrasast said, visitors won't be overly aware of its environmental mission. "You don't want it to be a science museum," he said. "It has to be about the art." But Ms. Adams said the art and the museum's green aspects were connected. "Protecting the environment, and art, are both about quality of life," she said. Education programs in the new building will stress that relationship. Docents will discuss the green features, and a small exhibit, designed by Mr. Yantrasast, will focus on uses of natural light in art museums worldwide.

The new museum opens today, according to a friend from Grand Rapids. It's situated next to a public park designed by Maya Lin, architect of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in D.C. Grand Rapids is really coming along - I went to college outside of GR and lived in the city for a year (and volunteered at the GRAM in its old location) and marveled at the potential in all the empty but well-preserved buildings and walkable streets. It's great to see that potential really gain some momentum in all the development that's happening downtown. Helped by its medium size and strong history I believe Grand Rapids is quickly becoming the most livable and vibrant city in Michigan. The construction of forward-thinking buildings like the new GRAM is more proof of that.

Pix of the new building here. A video shot during its construction can be found on Developing GR, the first urban development vlog I've seen.

The Assault on Reason

The popularly-elected President is just burning up YouTube.

No, really, this is the LAST one. We swear. Really.

Blade Runner: The Final Cut is on its way. Even when I was twelve or whatever and saw the original in the theater with my cinematically-lenient dad, I felt a little off about the ending. Where'd all that sunshine come from? I was happy for them that it all worked out, but that was a lot of sunshine, wasn't it? So much there was even a sunroof in the car, wasn't there? How'd such a darkly human android story become a car commercial? No matter, the bulk of the movie was cool, and filed away in my pre-teen brain as such. The director's cut I mostly missed, but now I don't need to bother with it, as Ridley Scott's finally been given some time and funding to do a quality revision. Kurt Loder does a good write-up on the latest last version, but he fails to mention whether we get more of Roy Batty - the biggest reason to watch the movie at all.

Clinton, Obama, Giuliani...

...these people don't interest me. Give me George F-ing Washington!

The Great Rift

Officially I gave up trying to understand the religious right years ago; their astonishing irrationality and breathtaking inconsistency (combined with their cagey political success) were bad for my stress levels until I reserved myself to the fact that they're just bat-shit-crazy ideologues who don't deserve the normal human right of an opinion.

The latest head-scratcher, while good news for anyone who wants to see the Republican party shear off large chunks of Focus on the Family flakes, concerns not just the backroom deal to 'consider' putting up their own candidate should Sir Rudy be given the Republican nod, but also their silence toward the Deciderer. There's no way, they reason, that they should have to put their incredible clout behind a pro-choice conservative. This, from the folks that put W in office, presumably so that he could take action to eviscerate Roe V. Wade. Given the Republican majority in Congress at the time, they must've been falling down in ecstatic anticipation of the changes afoot.

But those changes never happened. No Roe V. Wade gutting. Very few challenges to abortion rights at the federal level (and none that were successful, I believe). Very few challenges at the state level (though a few successful ones). With a born-again President and a majority in Congress indebted to the anti-abortion lobby, nowhere near the rollback I expected in January 2000 was actually carried out. But I haven't heard a peep from Dobson, Limbaugh, or the rest of their ilk regarding their boys' failure. In fact, I've heard pretty little about abortion at all outside of election cycles.

I think this means two things:

1) Most Republican politicians don't actually agree with the hard line stances they profess in order to garner support; more likely they agree with Bill Clinton that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

2) The tremendously powerful conservative political movement in the U.S. is on the ropes not due to their own failures, but thanks mostly to the Republican party's stellar failures of the past six years. But they're between Bill O'Reilly and another rock: they can't effectively chastise the very politicians they need to succeed. If the wingnuts stick to their ideological guns and back a third-party candidate, his (of COURSE it will be a man) run will be laughable at best, and will do for whoever the Republicans choose what Nader did for Gore. So they can either realize that their minority status and the War of on Terror have conspired to strip them of power for the next few years, or they can deny that truth, and embarrass themselves on a well-lit stage. (Following that, an effective and sustained offensive (but from whom?) could marginalize their voice for the extremist, anti-American, reactionary nuttiness that it is. Granted, you shouldn't hold your breath for that, but one can always dream.)