RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?

From RationalWiki

Article of the Weak  • Previous AotWs • Talk AotW
WIGO CP • WIGO Clogs • WIGO Blogs • WIGO World
Talk CP • Talk Clogs • Talk Blogs • Talk World

Archives: - 0001 -- 0002 -- 0003 -- 0004 -

Contents 1 Dowsing for bombs 2 Minnesota "climate change alert" 3 Creationism in UK universities 4 PETA 5 Daily Caller 6 Snow 7 Pew forum 8 UFOs 9 Domestic terror and the media 10 Secular Coalition Poll 11 Muslim food laws 12 IQ WIGO 13 CP 14 Obama vs. the Supreme Court 15 Salt 16 3D cloak

[edit] Dowsing for bombs

That WIGO is pretty grim. The quote from Major General Jehad al-Jabiri is a classic of black comedy: "Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs". I hope that the courts well and truly nail McCormick, and perhaps those in Iraq who gave the okay to send their people out in with the field with those pointless sticks. The UK may be more secular than the US, but we have a nasty habit of embracing woo. --^{Ask me about our ooze} 18:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Could it possibly be the "love for an underdog" misfiring? I mean, what shows the idea of an underdog more than someone putting forward an idea that sounds like it can't work and takes on big corporations? ArmondikoV^{...I'll complement your extension cord!} 17:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it's really true, but we do have a reputation for punishing success. I find it ironic though that people would see this company as being the underdog when he clearly has a vested interest in selling those things, yet the people who've long criticised him gain little from stopping him, and risk their reputations and money in the effort. --^{Ask me about our ooze} 10:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota "climate change alert"

We have a saying here: "If you don't like the weather in Minnesota, just wait a day." The temperature fluctuations are nothing unusual. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, here in New England it's "wait two hours". For extra funny, I listen to a MN radio station a lot on line, and I pretend their weather predictions are for me. They're roughly as accurate as the genuine local report. ħuman 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Where I live we have a saying: "If you don't like the weather move. Here is a weather forecast fo the next 50 million years; it is going to be fucking hot, and when it is not fucking hot, it is going to be fucking hot and raining". - User = π 10:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it said about Scotland also but I'm pretty sure that it's universal - If you don't like the weather wait for ten minutes. However, when I have been to Scotland the weather has usually been foul and everyone says "Och, you should have been here last week, it was glorious". Генгис^marauding 14:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

PS Just looked out the window and it's starting to snow. However, I doubt that we'll get anything near what you Americans have just had. Генгис^marauding 14:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't all of America, but of course if the weather mucks up Washington it's gonna be Big News 'cause the city is stuffed to the gills with reporters. ħuman 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re. Scotland: "If ye can see the Cuilins then it's goin' ta rain. If ye canna see the Cuilins then it's a'ready rainin'." ^{[Cuilins: range of hills on the Isle of Skye] yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism in UK universities

That Guardian article is from 2006, is it still relevant at all? I haven't heard anything about similar issues since, at least not with the same strength behind the claims. X Stickman (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The next step will be to spin anti-creationism as an "Islamophobic" doctrine; then creationists can SLAPP evolution supporters with hate crime charges under the new blasphemy laws. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice the date as I also saw it handed to me from another source. I assume it's been digg'd or something. ArmondikoV^{...I'll complement your extension cord!} 18:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] PETA

Don't know if its right to be here, but PETA's new ad has been banned. For good reason. --Sean^talk 09:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Caller

Regarding the story about Democrats considering amending the constitution, someone posted a link with the Daily Caller's take on it, and I gotta say, having read it and the comments, it's pretty right wing, shouldn't it be posted in the clogs section in the future? Also it's wikipedia article isn't very reassuring. (188.220.123.87 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

[edit] Snow

We now have

Whilst the US has blizzards, the Olympic men's downhill is cancelled due to "slushy" snow."

and just 4 entries below this

While conservatives use recent blizzards in the United States to mock the idea of global warming, record high January temperatures in Vancouver force the Olympics to import snow.

Don't people read what's been posted before or is it that they have to get their own special WIGO? Генгис^marauding 12:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes you see a story and think it's worth sharing. Not everyone checks the full WIGOs below it. Unless we have one single editor doing all the posting, this is unavoidable and I don't think it should generate complaints. ArmondikoV^{...I'll complement your extension cord!} 15:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

World is also a bit strange, as it may be several days or even weeks between person a seeing a story and person b seeing the same thing.... It sometimes leads to duplicates. Just comment out the newer one with an explnation and we move on. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 18:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Being a good editor means that you read as well as write. Not reading what other editors have written, especially only four entries beforehand, is disrepectful of other contributors. It's like those bores in the pub or at dinner paries who are so intent on having their own say and making a contribution that they don't listen to what other people are saying. It's rude and egotistical. Генгис^marauding 09:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Or it was a mistake. --Sean^talk 09:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Laziness more likely.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 14:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Pew forum

is interesting. New Hampshire appears to be the least religious state in the US. Huw, what have you been doing? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 08:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, they lumped us with Vermont, they're all commie scum atheists. Also there's the field projector in my attic... ħuman 18:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] UFOs

I highly recommend reading through this one. ArmondikoV^{...I'll complement your extension cord!} 19:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic terror and the media

While people who have been watching Newswipe may remember this, there was an interesting bit where the nature of terrorism and how it's described in the media. Basically, the idea is that there's a set narrative for what a "terrorist" is. And this changes over time whenever there is a major event. In the 80s and early 90s it was all the IRA - terrorists were Irish, wanting independence, generally hating the British for everything. Then in 1995 Timothy McVeigh set off a bomb in Oklahoma and suddenly the media's narrative of a terrorist became domestic, with McVeigh playing the archetype (this was also helped by Waco a few years earlier). Then 9/11 happened and terrorists became Islamic. So the media don't at any time report "terrorist" activity that doesn't fit the current archetype. Post 2001, there have been dozens of domestic terrorist attacks and incidents in the US (including another one in Oklahoma) but they don't get reported. The 2002 Bali bombing was only even reported because of an early connection with Al Qaeda and so on. Anyway, the point is that things like this don't get widely reported if they can't fit into the current "story-arc" (for lack of a better word) that the media present. It's quite sad, but this is the role that the news is currently playing, I'd definitely recommend Newswipe especially for the serious bits where this sort of thing is discussed, I'm going to try and track down the exact episode, I think it's the current series. ArmondikoV^{...I'll complement your extension cord!} 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is, as sad as it sounds, a lack of a body count. Lots of property damage, but not a high body count for people to really rally behind. Not to mention, after 9/11, people don't really want news about an airplane attack. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 00:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why was the underwear bomber a "terrorist?"TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Because he was Islamic, it fits the narrative. While body-count is important, that's only important for when they need to report something outside the established narrative. It's something that grabs the attention so hard it can't be ignored. Hence Oklahoma and 9/11 - which didn't fit the established terrorism model at the time - were capable of changing things. Even still, if a domestic terrorist in the US managed to get a body-count in three figures, it would probably be reported and ignored. Given that there is a two-front war going on, and the current precedent 3000 dead in 9/11 hanging in the background, it might not be enough to shift the media's perception of terrorism back to the domestic front. ArmondikoV^{...I'll complement your extension cord!} 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How much of the media's over coverage of Tiger vs its under coverage of this event has to do with the sheer insanity of this Tiger Woods story? Jsonitsac (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What's so insane? world class athlete cheated on his wife, she retaliated violently.... Happens everyday. If it weren't a celebrity with a clean cut image, it would be on page 14 of the local newspaper. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 22:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As they're repeating Newswipe and I'm watching the episode I was referencing above, here's the link to Dan Gardner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2VeSjA45U Also, the 2005 Oklahoma bombing. It's interesting to see that the authorities conclude that Hinrich's wasn't a "terrorist", but as Gardner points out, in 2005 a "terrorist" had to be Muslim - that's narrative. If we can't use the term terrorist to refer to someone who intentionally sets off a bomb, then it's quite clear that it's really just a euphemism for getting rid of Islam. ArmondikoV^{...I'll complement your extension cord!} 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Secular Coalition Poll

Okay, looking at the Secular Coalition Poll references in the wigo, I see this option:

Religious Refusal : Repealing “religious refusal” laws that keep people from receiving needed medical attention

I'm confoozled. Are they talking about repealing the laws that allow medical personnel to refuse to provide treatment (I'm generally for that), or are they talking about repealing laws that allow patients to refuse treatment on religious grounds? (I'm vehemently opposed to allowing medical care to be forced on an adult capable of informed consent.) MDB (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It'd almost have to be the former...although I do have problems with nutjob parents letting their kids die. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, my concerns were addressed in another option, so I'd say it has to be the former. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you raise a good point MDB, they've phrased that poorly. My guess is they're talking about repealing laws e.g. allowing doctors to refuse to provide contraception counseling or something on religious grounds. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim food laws

Aren't Muslim and Jewish food laws much the same ? If France starts picking on Muslims for Halal stuff where will it end. Hamster (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have some pretty serious reservations with regard to France's odd anti-religion stance. I could understand the problem if it were a state facility, such as the canteen in a school, that banned pork in order to avoid offending Muslims and Jews, but this is a private business. This is just as ill-considered as the headscarf ban. There is a grain of wisdom there, but it seems to me that it's buried under a mountain of anti-Islamic thinking. --^{Ask me about our ooze} 12:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The basics are similar, the prohibited foods are about the same, except that Muslims also prohibit anything with alcohol in them, whereas Jews (and the French) consider alcohol a blessing. The slaughter requirements for Kosher are a lot more strict though. Here, Uncle Cecil will straighten things out. Jsonitsac (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] IQ WIGO

I'm not endorsing this so much as putting it up for discussion. - Ravenhull (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

They could make quite a song and dance about the elitist aspects mentioned in the story. Statistically it's interesting, but of course there's no guarantee that all atheists are more clever than theists any more than one could claim that any given Brit is better at cricket than all Americans. --^{Ask me about our ooze} 12:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am proof that IQ is fairly meaningless. I scored near the top during testing by a child psychologist when my Kindergarten teacher wanted me to repeat the year. I was in Mensa briefly during college, along with a stripper, prostitute, a garbage collector and an arcade games repair guy. We were all horribly bored with it in a week. I am a firm believer that a reasonable brain, and a commitment to study is the way to go. Hamster (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason anyone joins MENSA is so they can tell people they're in MENSA. Unfortunately, people stop being impressed by that by the time they hit 20. As for IQ: It's really more a measure of potential (specifically, potential in spatial and abstract thought) than a measure of intelligence. I've met plenty of high IQ morons in my time. Finally, as to the WIGO itself: Kanazawa, the main author of that study, is a world-class crank. Fortunately, most of the folks in the liberal blogosphere seems to recognize this and have washed their hands of the guy. I'm working on some of the hold-outs myself. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Say no more!   ^Contribs_Talk 09:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] CP

I thought this was supposed be a CP-free zone, yet we have several WIGOs with CP snark. Could we please refeain from this, if it doesn't stand on its own as something of interest then leave it out.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 15:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But I'd let the global warming suicide pact thing stand as CPs response to it was quite horrendous - even if the WIGO was set up as "what will Andy think of this?". I'd say to stick in a commented out remind about it, but either people will ignore it, or that in itself would be CP slipping into WIGO:World. ArmondikoV^{...I'll complement your extension cord!} 15:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Obama vs. the Supreme Court

The President has no business criticizing a Supreme Court ruling in his official capacity. If President Bush had criticized one of the court rulings against the Patriot Act in a SOTU address, I think most of us would have been up in arms. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The President has every right to critize the court, just as much as he (or she) has the right to attack Congress and vice versa. How about the eight million times conservative presidents have attacked the Roe V. Wade decision? The President and the Supreme Court are frequently at odds with each other, and this is nothing new. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 19:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law in a constitutional manner. If he disrespects a court ruling, it is not the same as if he attacks Congress, because it implies that he is willing to disregard constitutional strictures. The conservative presidents should not have attacked Roe v. Wade either. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying that he disagrees with a decision isn't undermining the constitution. Are you saying he shouldn't be allowed to disagree with a vote in congress, or for that matter, that every congressman should be forced to agree with a vote once it has been taken even if they disagreed with it? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

He is sworn to uphold the constitution and enforce the law. He didn't swear to not criticize the SCOTUS. I once knew a guy who tried to censor criticism of branches of the government...turns out that guy was a Red. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just said that he has no business doing it, not that he should not be allowed to do it. Disagreeing with a vote in Congress is not a problem, since abiding by those votes follows from sticking within constitutional strictures. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You to stop people from doing things the constitution allows them to do, we get it... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I want people to stop doing disagreeable things that are permitted by the Constitution and the law. No coercion about it. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember a guy who wanted me to stop doing constitutional things he disagreed with, but he didn't try to coerce me. Instead, he gave me these pamphlets to try and do it for him. I think they were red. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you disagree with my asking the contributors at aSK to stop begging for blocks? ListenerX^TalkerX 20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Asking for blocks? No, not really. wp:wp:Point making? Yes, I do disagree. If discussion fails on WP, you have sensible mediation and dispute resolution. If discussion fails on ASK, proving your point experimentally is the next most viable alternative. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But I do not suppose you want to stop me from asking them? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

...have you been taking me seriously again? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but it is fun to see where logical progressions from random goofiness can lead. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad. +1 for ListenerX. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Salt

If memory serves Pratchett mentioned something about "autocondimenters. Not sure which book but apparently there was a study by McDonalds. By eliminating seasoning from their burgers they saved a fortune. 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

It was about Mustrum Ridcully, I'm almost certain, but I can't remember which book either. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The McDonald's bit was mentioned in the Science of Discworld. - User = π 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WowWow sauce comes to mind. 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

[edit] 3D cloak

I find it funny that those guys specifically worked to remove the "bump", yet the bump has been a consistent feature of invisibility devices in movies. --^{Ask me about our ooze} 20:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)