Here are links I found interesting on March 18, 2010:
Stonekettle Station: Glenn Beck Killed My Father-In-Law – "Glenn Beck is a liar of extraordinary proportion. A rabble rouser. A charlatan. A hypocrite. He is a gross swollen pustule on the ball-sack of humanity. He epitomizes everything that is wrong with pandering to the lowest common denominator." Read WHY Jim Wright feels so strongly about Glenn Beck. You'll probably agree.
I’m a skeptic. I’ve been a skeptic for at least the past 10 years, although I didn’t have a label for it way back when. After realizing that there was no proof in a lot of things I’d been told to simply believe, I started looking at things with a more skeptic eye. Although you can’t prove a negative — for example, something doesn’t exist — you can withhold believe until proof of the positive. That’s where I sit now.
Mary’s Mother
It’s also where I sat a few days ago when a house guest brought up the topic of a person’s spirit continuing to exist after death. When she — we’ll call her Mary (not her real name) — asked me whether I believed a person’s spirit existed after death, I said, without hesitation, no. She then launched into a long story about why she believed that spirits do go on after death.
It was kind of pitiful. Mary’s mother had died about two years before after about a year of declining health. Mary lived in California. Her mother lived in New York. Her mother was financially stable and had hired in-home nurses to care for her as she began the dying process. She’d been an alcoholic for most of her life and although she was always upbeat and fun, her last months were painful. Mary believed that the Hispanic nurses had held back on pain medication until her mother “accepted Jesus” — not very likely, as she was Jewish — and, as a result, her mother’s eventual death was more painful than it should have been.
Mary and her brother visited during the months their mother’s health was declining. In the end, they stayed until it was over.
Mary claims that a few days after her mother died, she had a dream that convinced her that her mother had died “a horrible death.” (I have trouble believing that, as she was fortunate enough to die at home with family nearby.) Mary claimed that her mother’s spirit was trapped in her house, unable to escape to whatever other place spirits are supposed to go.
Desperate to resolve the situation and save her mother’s tortured spirit, she sent a family member to the now unoccupied house to tell her mom to leave. (Mary was back in California by this time.) I don’t know if this family member actually did this.
Mary then contacted a psychic in California for assistance. I didn’t get all the details on the first contact. Apparently, Mary e-mailed the psychic a photo of her mother. I don’t know if she provided her mother’s name. In any case, they spoke by phone and the psychic managed to convince Mary that she could communicate with her dead mother. Tarot cards were involved; Mary didn’t understand why she needed them but was willing to put that aside. She told Mary that her mother was indeed trapped in her home and that the only way to free her spirit was for three people in three different places to light candles and play her mother’s favorite music and pray to her mother to “cross over.” I think they had to do this for three days in a row, but I may have that wrong.
So Mary asked her husband and cousin to do this. She did it, too. She says she’s not sure if her cousin did it.
Afterwards, she met with the physic in person. The psychic told her she did not remember their initial contact. She asked the psychic about her mother’s spirit. The psychic said that her mother’s spirit had been trapped but then something had “popped” (her word) and her mother had crossed over.
Mission accomplished.
I don’t know how much money exchanged hands, but I know Mary can afford whatever it was. And I do know that Mary is happy now, so I guess you can easily argue that no harm was done.
I’m not quite that generous, though.
Cold Reading
What followed was a discussion of cold reading, where a “psychic” makes a bunch of guesses and then reads his subject’s response to zero in on actual facts. It is documented that the human mind is more likely to remember correct guesses than incorrect ones. So if a “psychic” does a “psychic reading” and makes 5 correct yes/no guesses, 9 yes/no misses, and one direct hit, people come away thinking that the “psychic” has real psychic power.
Of course, John Edward came up in our conversation. Mary fully believed in his power. She had examples of “proof” of his power. She was not interested in the fact that every John Edward Crossing Over show is taped and then edited. They edit out the discussions he has that result in mostly misses and leave in the results that are mostly hits. The result might be something like this, which I don’t think is very convincing:
Did you watch this video? This is classic cold reading. Throwing out a common name, picking the person who responds, and asking questions to get information. Guessing all kinds of things that are relatively common — cancer, military service, etc. Pulling info out of people with questions. And they think he has real power. But listen carefully. How much is he actually getting right? How much is he telling them? Isn’t it more of a fishing expedition to suck information from people who already believe in his ability?
As Joe Nickell writes in his piece about John Edward:
The “psychic” can obtain clues by observing dress and body language (noting expressions that indicate when one is on or off track), asking questions (which if correct will appear as “hits” but otherwise will seem innocent queries), and inviting the subject to interpret the vague statements offered. For example, nearly anyone can respond to the mention of a common object (like a ring or watch) with a personal recollection that can seem to transform the mention into a hit.
I could not convince Mary. She was not willing to believe in my explanation of how he could have gotten a particular detail correct. The discussion got heated. She kept trying to convince me. I could not be convinced about a “trick” when I knew how it was done.
What I find particularly disturbing about all this is that Mary has a PhD in psychology and treats patients with particularly troubled backgrounds. She should be the voice of reason in these people’s lives. I hope that “woo” does not find its way into her diagnoses or treatments.
Another Friend
When I tried to relate this story to another friend of mine, he said two conflicting things in the same sentence: “You know I’m skeptical about all kinds of things, but I really believe the psychic I go to has real power.”
It was difficult for me not to explode with laughter.
He then went on to tell me about what was likely a personal, one-on-one cold reading. He’d make an easy subject. He’s a real talker and it wouldn’t take much to pull information out of him. He’s also willing to believe, which makes him more likely to remember hits more than misses or turn partial misses into hits by voluntarily providing information that makes a wrong guess right. This is why true believers will always continue to believe. They don’t understand that if a person had real psychic power, he/she should be able to make far more factual statements than errors. And the technique wouldn’t be a glorified guessing game, like the one John Edward plays on his television show.
My friend told me I should go see his psychic for proof. He’d set up an appointment. He’d tell her that I was a skeptical friend –
I stopped him right there. I told him I’d go, but only if he didn’t tell her a single thing about me — including my name. He didn’t seem to understand that she could simply Google me to learn all kinds of things about me that would be useful in her “reading.” It wouldn’t be a cold reading anymore; it would be a hot reading. She could simply recite things off my bio.
Will I go? Only if I’m sure she doesn’t know anything about me when I arrive. I may throw out my first name to see if she takes the hispanic bait (in Arizona, it’s far more likely for a woman named Maria to be Mexican than Italian). I’ll likely dress myself up a bit to alter my appearance and lead her to believe things about me that might not be true. I think these would be good tests of her ability to read minds rather than physical appearances. It would be an interesting experiment.
After all, I am a skeptic. Although I don’t believe that anyone has psychic power, I’m willing to let them try to prove that they do.
Evidently, even a few folks with functioning brains believe this.
Yesterday, I was shocked and awed when someone I do business with admitted that she thinks Obama might be a Muslim.
I can’t make this stuff up.
This person, who occasionally reads this blog, might be offended by my “How Stupid Are We?” post, where I pretty much said that anyone who believes lies like this is stupid. I hate to offend people I like, so I’m writing this post. I don’t think she’s stupid. I think she’s just fallen into the Web of lies and innuendo woven by the conservatives who want to keep Republicans — even if it means John McCain — in power.
So I’ll say something here that I never thought I’d have to say. (Frankly, I thought my readers were smart and well-informed enough for me to skip a statement of the obvious.)
The whole “Obama is a Muslim” rumor can be traced back to Andy Martin. You can read all about it in — dare I suggest it? — the New York Times: “The Man Behind the Whispers About Obama.” Here’s an excerpt:
An examination of legal documents and election filings, along with interviews with his acquaintances, revealed Mr. Martin, 62, to be a man with a history of scintillating if not always factual claims. He has left a trail of animosity — some of it provoked by anti-Jewish comments — among political leaders, lawyers and judges in three states over more than 30 years.
Is this the kind of guy you want to believe?
Of course, he appeared on FoxNews, which “…allowed Mr. Martin to assert falsely and without challenge that Mr. Obama had once trained to overthrow the government. ” I guess if it’s on FoxNews, it must be gospel (pun intended).
Anyway, all this upsets me to the extreme. I don’t mind people voting for the candidate I don’t support. But I do mind them making their decision based on vicious lies and innuendo — especially those made by a man with a history of lying and accepted by a news organization with a track record of bias.
I want people to know the truth and make decisions based on that.
I’m shocked and saddened by the spread of evil bullshit by conservative Republicans and the McCain campaign — and the way some of the American public seems to be swallowing it.
It’s all over the Web. I can’t spend an hour reading respectable publications without finding more and more examples.
With so much at stake, and time running short, Frederick did not feel he had the luxury of subtlety. He climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points — for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: “Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon,” he said. “That is scary.” It is also not exactly true — though that distorted reference to Obama’s controversial association with William Ayers, a former 60s radical, was enough to get the volunteers stoked. “And he won’t salute the flag,” one woman added, repeating another myth about Obama. She was quickly topped by a man who called out, “We don’t even know where Senator Obama was really born.” Actually, we do; it’s Hawaii.
It’s the sheer stupidity of these McCain campaign volunteers that I find most offensive. Rather than learn the truth — for example, where Obama was born — they’d rather spread gossip, rumors, and lies. They don’t care how their candidate wins — as long as he wins.
And frankly, McCain’s not much better than his volunteers.
FactCheck.org, an independent, non-partisan organization with the lofty goal of checking the facts in public statements to expose the falsehoods, has been having a tough time keeping up with the bullshit hitting the airwaves and the Web this election season. While it has exposed some falsehoods and misleading statements made by the Obama campaign, the vast majority of false claims appears to be coming from the McCain side.
In a TV ad, McCain says Obama “lied” about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and ’70s….We find McCain’s accusation that Obama “lied” to be groundless. It is true that recently released records show half a dozen or so more meetings between the two men than were previously known, but Obama never denied working with Ayers.
The McCain-Palin campaign released the ad, titled “Dangerous,” and said it would be televised nationally. It recycles a misleading, 14-month-old charge that Sen. Barack Obama disrespected U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan by accusing them of “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.” It also misrepresents votes in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq as being votes “increasing the risk on their lives.”
New York Times Op-Ed columnist Gail Collins wrote a brilliantly sarcastic piece titled “Dear Old Golden Dog Days,” where she laments the passing of the early days of the campaign. Of McCain’s current campaign ads and the current Republican strategy, she states:
Now they’re all about the Evil That Is Obama. The newest one, “Ambition,” has a woman, speaking in one of those sinister semiwhispers, saying: “When convenient, he worked with terrorist Bill Ayers. When discovered, he lied.” Then suddenly, with no warning whatsoever, she starts ranting about Congressional liberals and risky subprime loans. Then John McCain pops up to say he approved it. All in 30 seconds! And, of course, McCain would think it’s great. For the first time, the Republicans appear to have captured his thought process on tape.
The Republican campaign strategy now involves sending their candidates to areas where everybody is a die-hard McCain supporter already. Then they yell about Obama until the crowd is so frenzied people start making threats. The rest of the country is supposed to watch and conclude that this would be an enjoyable way to spend the next four years.
One of the 212 commenters (so far) to the piece, Walt Ingram says, in part:
I don’t know if Sarah Palin is really mean spirited or if she understands what a disservice she is doing to the country. I do know however that she is drunk with the euphoria of cheering crowds and the power she has to excite and fire up the anger and hate within her crowds. She wants to get people to believe that Obama is “un-American.” Unfortunately some people are taken in.
The rest of his comment is certainly worth reading, as are the other “Editor’s Selections” comments for the post.
“The reports are piling up of ugliness at the campaign rallies of John McCain and Sarah Palin,” Kerry writes. “Audience members hurl insults and racial epithets, call out ‘Kill Him!’ and ‘Off With His Head,’ and yell ‘treason’ when Senator Obama’s name is mentioned. I strongly condemn language like this which can only be described as hate-filled.”
The Kerry making this statement is John Kerry at a fundraising appeal for the Obama campaign.
With recent polls showing Sen. Barack Obama’s lead increasing nationwide and in several GOP-leaning states, some Republicans attending John McCain-Sarah Palin campaign rallies are showing a new emotion: rage.
The article goes on to report multiple cases of McCain-Palin rally attendees shouting racial epithets, calling Obama a “terrorist” and yelling “treason” when his name is mentioned, and booing McCain when he assures them that Obama is a “decent person.”
This topic even came up on NPR’s Diane Rehm show on its weekly News Roundup. The 10:00 AM segment for October 10 became heated when Diane and her three guests, Eleanor Clift, Matthew Continetti, and Juan Williams discussed how Republican rallies are generating hate toward Obama. Ms. Clift stated that the McCain camp was “flirting with very dangerous rhetoric” and voiced her concerns about vocalizations of “Kill him!” at rallies. (You can download the segment here; the discussion begins at 27:40 minutes.)
It seems to me that the McCain campaign isn’t doing anything positive to improve its chances of winning the election. Instead, it’s polarizing the public, driving a wide wedge between the believers of this “dangerous rhetoric” and the thinking public who know better. It’s dividing the nation.
What good will that do us, especially in these troubled times?
How can the McCain campaign continue with this policy of personal attacks against Obama, attacks designed to scare voters and fire them up to a hateful frenzy? How can this possibly prove McCain to be “presidential material”?
And can people really be stupid enough to believe the Muslim, terrorist pal claims?
I guess folks like these can — the craziness starts at about 2 minutes in:
I just finished The Children of Men by P.D. James. James, who normally writes mysteries featuring her series detective, Adam Dalgliesh, wrote instead of a futuristic world 25 years after the birth of the last-born child. In the world of this book, there are no children, no babies, and no hope for new human life.
James paints a sad picture of that world. Schools are converted into housing for the elderly, colleges now teach courses of interest to adults who don’t have their time occupied by their offspring. Playgrounds are gone. The government is trying to centralize the population in big cities so it’s easier to provide services as the population dwindles and only a handful of elderly people are left.
[This might sound weird, but it reminded me a bit of the retirement town I live in. Of course, there are some children and young people here, but the majority of residents and voters are retired so there isn't much emphasis on things that would benefit young people. The local school board, for example, was unable to pass a school bond in the most recent vote -- people don't want to foot the bill for education when they don't have kids in the system. The local Center for the Arts released its 2007/2008 schedule last month, and for the first time since opening about 5 years ago, there isn't a single family-oriented program on the schedule. Are they giving up on children here in Wickenburg?]
The book has a hero: 50-year-old Theo. Theo is first cousin of the Warden of England, Xan, a self-made dictator first elected as Prime Minister years ago. Xan makes extreme decisions that benefit the apathetic public, by enhancing safety and reducing the cost and bother of supporting the aging population. But a handful of people aren’t happy with his decisions and want to stop him. They go to Theo, hoping he can convince Xan to change things. To say much more would be a spoiler, but I will mention that there appears to be hope for the world when a woman becomes pregnant.
I enjoyed the book’s fast pace after its initially slow start. A lot of background information was presented in the form of Theo’s personal diary before a third person narrator stepped in and picked up the story. It wasn’t a long book — I read it over a weekend — and the pages turned quickly. Now I’m waiting for the movie based on the book to appear in a Netflix envelope in my mailbox. I have a feeling that the movie will be a lot more exciting than the book, focusing on the events that occur after the pregnancy is discovered, Hollywoodized for maximum visual impact.
Did I like the book? Yes, I did. It made me think. And in today’s world of eye candy entertainment, that’s saying a lot.
Add to Del.icio.us
Technorati This
Digg This
Stumble it!
Tweet This
