Just when I was feeling a lack of things to write about that I haven't beaten to a repetitive pulp, salvation comes from of all places Facebook.
Accordingly, the topic du jour is "Conspiracy Theories", specifically those that people adopt without recognizing them as such. It's arguable that if people recognized something as a conspiracy theory (negative connotation of irrationality and unverifiable intended) they wouldn't adopt it. A good old conspiracy on the other hand...
In some ways this is uncharacteristically personal for me, as it was triggered by something posted by a friend, or at least someone who remains so at the time of writing. I've cut people loose before and I'll do it again any time that I need to if they become liabilities or it's clear we no longer have anything in common. We're very close to this point presently because B (let's call him that) seems to be getting sucked in by what I consider dark, irrational forces.
As is plain to anyone who reads this (and I don't think anyone who doesn't know me personally does anyway) you cannot say something that I consider foolish and not have me call you on it. Accordingly, if you post something that talks about how the Israel lobby, aided by "the Rothschilds" controls the media and whitewashes everything in Israel's favour, I'll be all over you.
Firstly, though B denies it, this is standard "Jewish big business controlling the world" conspiracy. Secondly it's patently absurd, especially the media angle; Israel is regularly vilified in the media, the media being largely a product of the leftist puppy mills masquerading as Universities these days.
So, it's apparent that he is sucking this stuff up without any rational or empirical analysis, and despite my intellectual limitations I am an absolute scourge of people like that. What depresses me is that facts and proof, verifiable falsifiable information, has no effect on people who buy into these things.
The foundation of any Conspiracy Theory is something, and it can be anything, that CANNOT BE PROVED. One of the more egregious examples is the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001. I watched it happen, live on TV, so these idiots are not going to tell me that it was a "controlled demolition". I've seen them though, arguing that the lack of evidence for their allegation is due to a Mossad/CIA plot involving a fictional substance dubbed "nano thermite".
The idea of a CT is to provide an explanation that fits your narrative, in other words to fit events to your worldview (evidence be damned). Preconceptions are particularly resistant to any assault by reasoned debate; most people are intellectually lazy and and find it easier to accept pre-digested ideas. I frequently need to change my views on things as new information comes to me, but not on everything. If your ideas are well founded on facts, only a change in the FACTS, not merely other ideas will necessitate a change.
The ongoing debasement of the English language notwithstanding, I am not Humpty Dumpty; words have particular meanings, not just whatever I decide that they mean. In that vein, the objects of my ire today are properly called Conspiracy Conjectures. A theory is something that originated as a falsifiable hypothesis and was verified by reapeatable testing, and these conspiracies are none of that. Conjecture (paraphrasing from Oxford) is a half-assed idea based on incorrect or incomplete information.
I'm not going to waste time debunking specific things today, but I did my best to make B think about what he's posting. Some of our mutual aquaintances believe some questionable things, and I think this is rubbing off on B. I've asked him for specific examples and some quantifiable info (names and numbers); something tells me that I won't be getting it, but I'd like to be surprised here. And yes, we did land on the Moon.
Tuesday 24 August 2010
Saturday 21 August 2010
Imperial Chicken Cordon Bleu
I pondered something about Iran and how to deal with that situation (nukes, particularly, government in general) but I lack enthusiasm for that at the moment. No, the thing that increasingly steams my beans is the growing oppression we in the formerly free West are being subjected to. For the moment this is mostly a problem in the increasingly totalitarian USA, but the virus spreads to our ruling class every time the Yanks touch down on our soil.
Most recently, and not at all close to home, is Obama's performance in L.A. when his peeps shut down entire neighbourhoods for hours so his O-ness could hold a fundraiser at a supporter's house. This has definite parallels with the recent G20/G8 foolishness in Toronto, and outrageous police-state security is de rigeur every time the Americans are involved.
Security and paranoia go hand-in-glove, and both are MAJOR industries in the US. The harsh truth is that when you're up against suicide bombers, no amount to security is foolproof. Certainly most domestic threats against Western aren't at that level, so the shutting down of entire sections of any visited municipality is overkill from either end of the threat spectrum.
Secrecy, swiftness and frequent changes of plan are the keys to minimizing exposure to hostile action. Dates are rarely secret but times can be fudged, routes can be varied, and all it will take is a standard police escort for the VIP convoy. This applies only of course if effectiveness and economy of effort/minimal public disruption are the objectives.
There is however that pesky evidence that keeping "the Principal" safe is not the primary purpose; rather it's keeping the hoi poloi (us) in their place. Tune your news antennae to "egregious security overreach" and I'm sure you'll see more of this, certainly with the current American Imperial house.
Most recently, and not at all close to home, is Obama's performance in L.A. when his peeps shut down entire neighbourhoods for hours so his O-ness could hold a fundraiser at a supporter's house. This has definite parallels with the recent G20/G8 foolishness in Toronto, and outrageous police-state security is de rigeur every time the Americans are involved.
Security and paranoia go hand-in-glove, and both are MAJOR industries in the US. The harsh truth is that when you're up against suicide bombers, no amount to security is foolproof. Certainly most domestic threats against Western aren't at that level, so the shutting down of entire sections of any visited municipality is overkill from either end of the threat spectrum.
Secrecy, swiftness and frequent changes of plan are the keys to minimizing exposure to hostile action. Dates are rarely secret but times can be fudged, routes can be varied, and all it will take is a standard police escort for the VIP convoy. This applies only of course if effectiveness and economy of effort/minimal public disruption are the objectives.
There is however that pesky evidence that keeping "the Principal" safe is not the primary purpose; rather it's keeping the hoi poloi (us) in their place. Tune your news antennae to "egregious security overreach" and I'm sure you'll see more of this, certainly with the current American Imperial house.
Friday 6 August 2010
Insecurity Theatre
I admit to falling behind here, but it's summer and I'm on vacation so I make no excuses. There is a fair bit of stuff that gets my goat from time-to-time, but I need to have some sort of answer to the goat-getting happenings before I can get a decent rant going.
Although no promises are made for a neat solution to the security theatre making travel such an invasive chore these days, the creeping Orwellian tendencies of certain agencies are more and more on my radar these days. I have already decided that I will NOT undergo a full body scan of the sort today's link talks about; if they want to know what's under my clothes they'll have to do it the old-fashioned way.
Even better, I'll stay in Canada until the Americans realize that no-one anywhere else in the world is more likely to go on a shooting rampage than they are. Likewise there are enough drugs and explosives available in the U.S. and enough illegals pouring over their southern borders that any air traveller (or driver for that matter) coming from anywhere else is not likely to make a material difference if you let ordinary people and law enforcement do what comes naturally when something bad appears.
The full truth of United 93 can never be known, but we can be certain that left alone the scum who hijacked that plane wouldn't have crashed it in that field. It's not much of a choice, but if I knew I was going to die I'd do whatever I could to not take any (more) innocent people with me, and I'm sure that's what Todd Beamer was thinking in his last moments.
As the underwear bomber of last Xmas showed, the best and last line of defence is a self-preserving public who remember the real lesson of 9/11/2001; don't let the terrorists do what they want. Jasper Schuringa likely had that lesson in mind when he jumped Abdulmutallab, and he was the only thing that took any active role in preventing another air massacre. The system, for all of it's obnoxious security agents, scanners, no-fly lists etc. failed epically.
If the goal was in fact ensuring that transportation and the economy kept moving smoothly, bags would still be x-rayed and metal/explosives detectors would still be used. We would also do what has worked (more often than not) forever and "profile" people.
It is a fact that people who are up to something tend to behave strangely. Those damned "naked" scanners wouldn't pick up the very thing (explosive shorts) that they were rushed into action to prevent, but security or boarding agents doing their job and not afraid of being sued for racism or "islamophobia" would have picked Abdulmutallab up before he even boarded, simply for being just a bit too suspicious. All of these overlapping intelligence agencies that don't talk to each other suck resources for little return, and in general the entire system keeps expanding in an effort to cover every possible angle.
Life is risky, and to live it at all we have to allow for some danger. Determining a point of diminishing returns on something like transportation security is fraught, but it's that difficult because of the zero-fault culture we keep moving toward. I can't sort it all out, but here's how you keep planes safe:
Yes, most people are sheep, but there are some sheepdogs out there and it only takes one or two to make all of the difference when things hit the fan. Less is in fact occasionally more, at least more effective when all of the "more" keeps tripping over itself and loses its purpose.
Although no promises are made for a neat solution to the security theatre making travel such an invasive chore these days, the creeping Orwellian tendencies of certain agencies are more and more on my radar these days. I have already decided that I will NOT undergo a full body scan of the sort today's link talks about; if they want to know what's under my clothes they'll have to do it the old-fashioned way.
Even better, I'll stay in Canada until the Americans realize that no-one anywhere else in the world is more likely to go on a shooting rampage than they are. Likewise there are enough drugs and explosives available in the U.S. and enough illegals pouring over their southern borders that any air traveller (or driver for that matter) coming from anywhere else is not likely to make a material difference if you let ordinary people and law enforcement do what comes naturally when something bad appears.
The full truth of United 93 can never be known, but we can be certain that left alone the scum who hijacked that plane wouldn't have crashed it in that field. It's not much of a choice, but if I knew I was going to die I'd do whatever I could to not take any (more) innocent people with me, and I'm sure that's what Todd Beamer was thinking in his last moments.
As the underwear bomber of last Xmas showed, the best and last line of defence is a self-preserving public who remember the real lesson of 9/11/2001; don't let the terrorists do what they want. Jasper Schuringa likely had that lesson in mind when he jumped Abdulmutallab, and he was the only thing that took any active role in preventing another air massacre. The system, for all of it's obnoxious security agents, scanners, no-fly lists etc. failed epically.
If the goal was in fact ensuring that transportation and the economy kept moving smoothly, bags would still be x-rayed and metal/explosives detectors would still be used. We would also do what has worked (more often than not) forever and "profile" people.
It is a fact that people who are up to something tend to behave strangely. Those damned "naked" scanners wouldn't pick up the very thing (explosive shorts) that they were rushed into action to prevent, but security or boarding agents doing their job and not afraid of being sued for racism or "islamophobia" would have picked Abdulmutallab up before he even boarded, simply for being just a bit too suspicious. All of these overlapping intelligence agencies that don't talk to each other suck resources for little return, and in general the entire system keeps expanding in an effort to cover every possible angle.
Life is risky, and to live it at all we have to allow for some danger. Determining a point of diminishing returns on something like transportation security is fraught, but it's that difficult because of the zero-fault culture we keep moving toward. I can't sort it all out, but here's how you keep planes safe:
- metal detectors, etc. screen out the guns knives and bombs;
- cockpit doors are locked for the duration of the flight, thus removing physical takeover of the plane as an option, and;
- Attached to the seat in front of each passenger is an 18" hardwood truncheon. Most effective use of the truncheon in close quarters will be demonstrated as part of the safety lecture.
Yes, most people are sheep, but there are some sheepdogs out there and it only takes one or two to make all of the difference when things hit the fan. Less is in fact occasionally more, at least more effective when all of the "more" keeps tripping over itself and loses its purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)