Why Scientists are Mad

Occassionally I browse the offers of Slate.com, ignoring the crappy articles I've run into in the past because sometimes something really great comes up. Also, I like reading Jon Katz's dog stories because puppies warm my heart. So in the science section an article catches my attention: String Theory is Claptrap. "Wow," I think, "I'll bet this physicist gives the string theory crowd a righteous thrashing!" I put my propeller beanie cap on, 'surf' on over, and get ready to enjoy the carnage.

But instead of an outraged theoretical physicist (LOVE those guys) lambasting those string theory whippersnappers, I get Gregg Easterbrook's first paragraph:

The leading universities are dominated by hooded monks who speak in impenetrable mumbo-jumbo; insist on the existence of fantastic mystical forces, yet can produce no evidence of these forces; and enforce a rigid guild structure of beliefs in order to maintain their positions and status.

Aw, shit.

The sure sign of a science crank is when the writer starts pulling out references to 'rigid beliefs' and 'mumbo-jumbo'. Fortunately there aren't many of these writers, but the ones who do exist tend to get a lot of space in publications. The reasons for this are simple: they serve the interests of the anti-science crowd, and they make for catchy headlines.

I continue to read, figuring that jackhole could just be using an inflammatory lede to catch the reader's interest. Sadly this was not the case, and Mr. Easterbrook took me on a lively jaunt through the fascinating world of crap science journalism. Take in the aroma of this particular pile of shit, referring to crazy-person Lee Smolin's theory that the universe was created specifically for people to live in it:

The physics establishment reacted adversely to Smolin's cosmic natural selection because the idea implies direction: Over time, existence progresses toward a condition more to the liking of beings such as us. In recent decades it has become essential at the top of academia to posit utter meaninglessness to all aspects of physics. Multiverse thinking is as meaningless as it gets—thousands or billions of universes uninhabitable and pointless, ours just a random-chance variation signifying nothing.

Sweet! Did you get the whole 'meaningless and pointless' line, because that's my favorite. It's another tactic of the anti-science crowd, casting aspersions on scientific theories that do not lead in some convoluted way to the notion that humans are special and there's a big invisible dude in robes who wants us all to put the penis in the vagina, not the rectum. Easterbrook sort of sneaks it in there, so to make sure the more stupid elements of his readers get it, he really rubs it in a few graphs later:

Today if a professor at Princeton claims there are 11 unobservable dimensions about which he can speak with great confidence despite an utter lack of supporting evidence, that professor is praised for incredible sophistication. If another person in the same place asserted there exists one unobservable dimension, the plane of the spirit, he would be hooted down as a superstitious crank.

Ah, and there it is: the money shot. A big glob of Jesus juice in your eye. These out of control, fanciful string theorists get away with researching an unobservable phenomenon, but when I try and tell them about Moses turning sticks into snakes and Satan, they just laugh at me!

Sadly, I got suckered into reading almost the entire article before getting juiced. Curious as to who Gregg Easterbrook is, I did a bit of Googling. Should have done that first, because he's a real winner. Apparently he's an editor for The New Republic , which should certify his batshit insanity all by itself. He also thinks that global warming is acceptable because we ate real good this last century, and the Jew bosses at movie production companies shouldn't worship money more than non-violence.

It's taken me a while to get to my point, so I'll make it and STFU: Easterbrook is not a scientist, nor does he appear qualified to comment on the scientific method. He's clearly an idiot, but he's also a biased idiot with an agenda. This does not further scientific progress, as he claims he is doing, but rather inhibits it. It turns the public away from funding groundbreaking, new science, and grows the emnity between the mouthbreathers in the Red States and the scientific establishment they don't understand. In short, writing like this is why people don't know the truth of things, and why non-science is being pushed upon our public schools. If I were a scientist in real life, and not just in Half-Life 2, I would be fairly pissed about this 'science' article in Slate.

Reason #412: Why the RIAA Sucks

Recently Eduardo challenged me to write two thought provoking and/or humorous posts in the next week. The reward was going to be a breakfast of his mother's delicious Spanish omelets - you know the open-faced kind embedded with all sorts of delicious vegetables and cheeses. Like the omelets you're used to, but interesting. That's such an awesome prize that there's no way I can be kept away, so I just want to say thanks to Eduardo and his mother for being so generous. And in honor of Eduardo's mother, who hates all of that depressing environmental news I like to share, I'm going to start with RIAfuckingA.

So, in the past five years or so the RIAA has been villified by nearly every aspect of modern society, revealing the association of retarded record execs and their lickspittle lackeys to be just another corrupt wing of the many-winged monstrosity we like to call corporate America. From Courtney Love's groundbreaking rant on sharecropping artists to the destruction of the earlier peer-to-peer networks to the total transformation into a lawsuit wielding consortium of capitalist cyborgs, the RIAA has not failed in its quest to make history as the most hated organization on the planet. Ever. Including the Third Reich and NAMBLA.

The RIAA's track record continues undiminished by time, as they are now sueing companies that produce hardware that can record broadcasts. Let that sink in a bit, because in a few seconds you're going to think of all of those times you recorded songs off of the radio on your crappy boombox tapedeck. Or of those times where you recorded a television show using that most arcane of devices, the VCR. Perhaps you will recall with fondness the Tivo, which allows users to record whatever the fuck they want from satellite feeds, including pay per view movies and reruns of the Crocodile Hunter. It is this technology, dear reader, that the RIAA is suing XM over, because XM is saying the cat's out of the bag on this one.

The RIAA gets what it wants because it employs an army of lawyers itching to ruin people's days, and whenever it sees an opportunity to make money from the work of its represented (poor as hell) artists, it sues. Think of it as a wealth redistribution program, where money goes from A.) your pockets into B.) the coffers of the RIAA and its lawyers. You'll notice that the artists aren't in that equation, because these lawsuits and fees do not in any way benefit the people who the RIAA theoretically represents.

There isn't a whole lot more to say other than what's probably already going through your head, so I'll leave you with a final thought: there isn't a single thing that a company with enough money cannot force you to do.

How to Save AAR

Air America Radio is a goddamned mess, and seems headed for extinction unless some radical steps are taken to preserve it. From the very beginning, AAR's founders were correct in their analysis that there's a demand for progressive talk radio and that it could be profitable, yet also since the beginning, they've been dead wrong about the form fulfilling that demand should take. Rather than devising content that would appeal to their target audience, they opted instead to replicate right-wing talk radio, simply replacing the obnoxious, partisan lies with slightly less obnoxious, equally partisan rhetoric from the other side of the political spectrum. And without all the lying and making shit up. Frankly, it's all the lying and making shit up that is probably such a strong appeal to dittoheads who listen to brain poison like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly's radio shows, since they have such simple minds and simplistic, angry bullshit is much easier to understand than the truth. And since liberals aren't generally really into generating support through trickery and misinformation, that formula has to be changed substantially if you want lefties to listen to your radio station. So what's a poor network to do? Well, thanks for asking, because I have a few suggestions that I believe could make Air America a profitable venture and an outlet that progressives would be more inclined to tap.

1) Cut the fucking commercials. If you listen to all three hours of Al Franken's show, you'll have listened to about an hour's worth of commercials. Usually the same four commercials over and over and over and over and over again. Dittoheads have plenty of time for that sort of shit, but for people with functioning brains like us, that is an unacceptable waste of time. We've got shit to do, and if I'm not learning something or being entertained, then buh-bye AAR -- I'm going to listen to Spearhead's "Everybody Ona Move" for the 8,000th time instead.

'But without commercials, how will they generate revenue?' you ask. Good question. Proves right there you're not one of those dittohead retards, and have the capacity to synthesize information. Way to go, Hegel. Well, I'm not going to formulate all the particulars, since that's beyond the scope of this piece, but a subscription would work, in my opinion. Get on satellite radio, charge web users subscriptions for streamable, on-demand content, either by the show or a 'gold pass' that gives you access to everything. Point is, if they radically restructured their product, they should easily be able to convince customers to pay for it, one way or another.

2) Do actual news. Remember investigative journalism? I'm talking about the kind where an actual journalist does actual investigating. There is WAY too much editorializing about the news out there, and not enough gathering and reporting it. Get rid of the pointless 2-minute news summaries at the top of the hour, which anybody can get from anywhere, and provide not only a longer-form news program with left-leaning, in-depth analysis, but also develop longer-form single-subject radio documentaries on important subjects that people need to know about. Revive the lost art of good radio programming. Lefties actually like to learn things, and documentary or news-oriented programming could be an excellent launching pad for discussions on other programs. If ever you are accused of being biased, proudly reply, "hell yes, we're biased -- we're pro-truth, pro-accuracy, pro-reality-based policy-making, pro-economic-and-social-justice, pro-Democracy. And we're anti-groupthink, anti-bullshit, anti-corruption and cronyism, anti-tyranny, and anti-taxation without representation. If you have a problem with that, go listen to Sean Hannity, because he epitomizes the polar opposite of our (American) values."

Do some actual, hard-hitting, investigative journalism, and you will get a lot of support just for that, considering the American media landscape is so corrupted by the profit motives of news division parent companies and whatnot that many of us feel like we have to leave the country to get decent news, like from the BBC and the Guardian and so on.

3) Listener-generated content! Check out YouTube and your local porn retailer, and you'll see that content developed by amateurs is tremendously popular. Capitalize on that and solicit submissions from listeners. Have a team of editors select the best stuff, and make a daily program out of it, or sprinkle other programs with the content you receive. Put no limitations on the submissions. Allow people to upload either 1-minute or 1-hour audio programs, and see what you get. Not only will you get people tuning in just to hear whether their submission gets aired, but some of the content you get will be so good you'll want to make shows or segments out of the ideas it generates. Plus, it helps to establish a whole people-powered aesthetic, which democratically-minded people tend to respond well to. Just get people more involved in general, and you'll not only excite more interest, but cut costs, too. For example, you could have volunteer fact-checkers who cost nothing and improve or maintain the substantive quality of your programming as a whole. You'd be surprised how many people would be willing to kick in a little effort to help a business like this one succeed. Asking them to listen to commercials and nothing more is SO the wrong way to go.

I've got other ideas and plenty more to say about this, but I'm getting bored with this, knowing that my effort will accomplish nothing because the execs at AAR are just like execs everywhere -- a bunch of number-crunching followers with no vision or creativity to speak of, yet willing to exploit the creativity of others as long as it's confined to a safe little well-defined box. Sorry AAR, but you're going to have to build a whole new metaphorical box if you want AAR to continue to exist as a business entity. It's important for you to try to understand that liberals (and we are many) don't think the same way that dittoheads do, don't buy the same shit, and are not as easily targeted as a market. You can't passively generate revenue from us, nor can you artificially generate demand -- you have to give us something that we want to buy. Once you do that, we will be tenaciously dedicated fans with a vested interest in preserving the quality of the content we consume.

The most significant miscalculation you've made was to assume that we wanted progressive radio that reflected 'the other side'. This dualistic paradigm is something we find objectionable, as thinking people. We don't want the 'other' side -- we want more sides. We are not put off by alternate viewpoints, we celebrate them. And there is nothing more boring to us than a one-sided argument.