Who!?

By Joseph Walther

About a year ago—perhaps less—a reader sent me an email asking about a fellow named Steven Milloy. At the time, and even before that, Mr. Milloy had been a designated global warming darling of conservative TV and radio, particularly “fair and balanced” FOX Broadcasting.

I replied to her explaining his identity and his theory that global warming was NOT a real threat to our environment, but rather an exaggerated position on the part of various tree-hugging alarmists.

Since then, I’ve not given the man much thought because I haven’t heard from him. Some silly old scientific stuff has come up that tends to make his thoughts on the matter seem a bit… well, stupid.

I’m puzzled, though. Over this past week, for some reason, I’ve received several emails involving Mr. Milloy’s scientific credibility pertaining to global warming. So, I’m going to repeat my position on him.

Understand at the outset that Steven Milloy is not stupid. He has a legitimate scientific background. It’s nothing at the post-graduate level, mind you, but he does hold a Master of Health Science in Biostatics from Johns Hopkins University.

Johns Hopkins is an outstanding university with some of the best Health Science programs in the world. It is not the type of academic institution that bestows a degree based solely on a student’s payment of tuition.

While his academic credentials quality him to discuss a relationship between global warming and health science, they do not qualify him to discuss the matter in terms of its existence, real or imagined, at any purely scientific level.

His doing so is tantamount to seventeenth-century Bishop James Ussher concluding that God created the world around 7,000 years ago by back-tracking all of the “begats” in the Bible. He even set a date, Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC.

Practically no one in the objective scientific community pays Milloy any mind at all. I think it’s a mistake to do this. Here’s why.

In general, the American public tends to be, shall we say, a bit lethargic when it comes to the hard sciences. Perhaps it’s the somewhat daunting mathematics. Regardless, dudes like Milloy, seeming personifications of technical competence and authentication, always rush to the rescue.

In addition, their command of the proper “buzz” words makes them appear perceptibly articulate. When they also project pleasant on-air personalities—and Milloy is a master at it—listeners tend to like and trust them in a deceptively comfortable, Walter Cronkitish sort of way.

That their academic backgrounds have nothing to do with the scientific theories they routinely condemn AND that the listening public tends to be scientifically clueless, hide most of the hints that they’re a scientific panderers.

Milloy should print business cards that read; “Have theory, will travel. Wire Milloy.” It worked for Paladin, but he was a real gun fighter!

I mentioned earlier that Milloy was—he may still be—the darling of the Conservative point of view relative to global warming. In addition to this, FOX Broadcasting IS synonymous with the label, Conservative.

So, it’s important to differentiate between FOX News and the various show-time FOX talking heads: Hannity, O’Reilly, and a few others.

Both groups put Milloy on the air, the news group for the purpose of convincing the listening public of their “fair and balanced” philosophy. The other group used him because he told them precisely what they wanted to hear: global warming is liberal hype.

It’s also important to understand the personality make-up of those who listen to FOX. I think there are three types. There are those who (1)…truly believe that FOX News IS, in fact, “fair and balanced,” (2)…those who are dyed in the wool, dogmatic Republican absolutists, and (3)…those who are looking for simple entertainment.

The first type comprises intelligent people who are sick to their eyeballs with a mainstream media that’s become increasingly subtle in its liberal bias. I don’t blame them. The bias is real, though I don’t think that FOX is the definitive solution to reversing the fact.

Perhaps this type of viewer doesn’t understand that the news coming out of FOX is just as slanted, only to a conservative bend. After all, FOX only presents the conservative view, what it calls the “other perspective.” It’s this singular fact that gives rise to FOX’s “fair and balanced” claim.

The second type of listener comprises the “vote Republican at ANY cost” crowd. Regardless of the facts, these people will vote the Republican ticket with an unabashedly Newt Gingrich-like fervor in every aspect: social, fiscal, political, and dogmatic.

They, as well as others, call themselves arch-Conservatives. I call them stupid. Of course, the arch-Liberals are just as bad. I think they’re just as stupid!

The third type watches FOX because they think it is “cool” TV programming. They prefer the color red over blue but don’t know why. What else can they do? Girls Gone Wild is no longer on the air.

These people derive very little from the news—regardless of the channel—because they fall asleep almost as soon as it comes on. It gives them a headache. As such, there is no need to fret over this group. They’re inconsequential and, hopefully, they won’t bother to vote.

As well, the first type, (genuine 3-digit IQs), is in a perpetual search for those who can appeal to their sense of “logic.” They’re in a quandary to begin with because global warming is a complex matter involving more than a single scientific truth.

Milloy fits their bill to a tee. He’s affable, seemingly authentic, and entertaining. The fact that his logic is flawed is of no consequence. He sounds intellectually impressive; so, he must have a valid point. Besides, it beats the hell out of the mainstream news channels!

The other type likes Steven Milloy because he speaks their language. He tells them what they want to hear. They comprise most of George Bush’s 26% approval rating. They still fervently believe that we’ll find all of those WMDs.

Finally, many people have expressed a belief that hurricane Katrina provided an example of the unintended consequences of global warming. I don’t believe that it did. We have yet to see that level of devastation.

Yes, it was tragically devastating, but most of it resulted from human incompetence on an unprecedented scale, and not just among the Bush people, either. The locals, Liberals and Conservatives, were just as much to blame.

The entire country knew, well in advance, what was coming: a category-2 hurricane that would strengthen to a category-3 before landfall. People didn’t pay attention. It amounted to a colossal human screw-up!

When ocean temperatures warm, hurricanes become stronger. This isn’t rocket science. It doesn’t take much of a warm-up, either—as little as a half to one-degree will shift hurricanes’ numerical category designations by a half to three quarters of a point.

Essentially, a category one becomes a category two. Two’s become three’s; three’s become four’s, etc. The world’s getting warmer, so get ready for it.

In matters of science, many humans choose the path of least resistance because they’re in a perpetual search for facts that fit their preconceived notions. When the facts fail this task, it’s easier to ignore them than it is to reexamine the preconceived notions.

People like Steven Milloy, whether they are Conservatives OR Liberals, will always find a place in our hearts because of this. And, broadcasting companies like FOX, MSNBC, and CNN will always provide a forum. Ratings, you know!

Well, another week has come and gone. I hope all of you enjoyed your holiday. If not, keep the faith. There’s another one close on its heels. If you’re claustrophobic, though, it’s best to stay out of the shopping malls. See you next week. Stay safe.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Common sense is SOOOO overrated!

By Joseph Walther

Whenever I hear the term, “common” sense, I become nervous. It is one of the most overused terms in the history of the human race. Still, people who use it are very sincere about it. While it’s a relatively harmless term much of the time, we still should use some degree of caution before we call something “common sense.”

First, “common” sense, if the term applies at all, can only exist when we’re all on the same page. So defining terms is critical prior to calling something “common” sense. Second, we should never forget that the term is time-relevant.

If we violate the former condition, we may end up arguing for hours over unrelated matters and end up looking foolish. If we violate the latter condition, we show a serious lack of historical perceptive.

Writers do a lot of watching and listening. I know that I do, anyway. I never leave my residence without two things: my digital voice recorder and my 2-megapixil camera/cell-phone.

I rarely have to drive more than two miles before potential column fodder begins to smash into the windshield of my two-seater sports car! Shopping malls and courtrooms, on the other hand, provide a literally inexhaustible supply of story-line ammunition.

Last Tuesday, after concluding a meeting in one of the Superior Court conference rooms, I walked down the five flights of stairs to the cafeteria for a cup of coffee. As I sat at a table drinking it, I could not help but overhear a heated discussion among five people seated at the table to my right.

From what I was hearing, it became obvious that two of the men at that table had tested positive to a drug test administered by their employer—the State of Delaware. State agencies can do this for cause and fire those testing positive.

Apparently, they were awaiting a preliminary hearing to determine if a wrongful termination lawsuit would go forward. This confused me because, where the State of Delaware is concerned, such matters do not go to court.

These matters go to arbitration. The arbiter’s ruling is final! What surprised me was that, apparently, a Delaware attorney agreed to take such a case. Poor guy! He’ll likely be experiencing severe rectal bleeding when the judge is though with him.

Anyway, the crux of their argument was that drug testing constituted a privacy invasion and that it never constitutes proof of diminished job performance. In their minds, “common” sense dictated an impending victory against the state.

The other three, a man and two women voiced differing opinions. Lyle defended employers’ rights to test for illegal drug use. He based his position on the legal principle of Joint and Several Liability.

He argued that employers have an obligation to provide drug-free work environments in the interests of employee safety, as well as that of the general public while engaged in business with various state entities.

Then, the old “common” sense thingy reared its often irrelevant head, AGAIN. Pat, one of the women, said, “Drug testing proves nothing in terms of job performance.”

The other woman, Nora, rolling her eyes and oozing condescension all the table, chimed in with, “It’s simple common sense that random drug tests do NOT test for diminished mental capacity or diminished physical dexterity.”

“Walther,” I said to myself, “stay out of this!” I did and I’m proud of myself. Just the same, I’m going to let you folks in on something here.

These two men were not fired for diminished job performance. The State fired them for testing positive to using illegal drugs. Illegal drug use is a CRIME, whether it causes diminished job performance or not.

The sole purpose of drug testing, random or specifically directed for cause, is to detect illegal drug use. As long as it’s done properly, it accomplishes its goal and enjoys the support of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals.

On Saturday afternoon, another hot button topic reared its ugly head: government-sponsored needle exchange programs for intravenous drug addicts. A poster broached the subject in a discussion forum at www.talkdelaware.com.

I enjoy Talk Delaware because the moderators keep the discussions civil and devoid of personal attacks. This topic was no different.

The views were varied. Some posters agreed with needle exchange programs but felt that public money should not fund them. Others disagreed with the programs on moral principles.

We can debate whether or not needle exchange programs work. However, everyone involved must first understand the purpose of the programs.

People can’t use a “common” sense argument to declare programmatic failure without first understanding a program’s success criteria.

Those who argue that such programs should be discontinued because “common” sense dictates that they do nothing to instill a sense of responsibility in addicts; enable even more illegal drug activity; and are ineffective at getting people off of drugs, can never win the point based on “common” sense.

Needle exchange programs have a single and directly stated goal: prevent the spread of disease. These programs have never claimed any impact on addiction reversal or accepting personal responsibility. So we can’t use such arguments in efficacy evaluations.

On the other hand, the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the World Health Organization enthusiastically endorse such programs and they have ample data to show that they have been effective in their stated purpose: preventing the spread of disease.

I also disagree with the argument against using tax dollars to fund the program. One of the primary responsibilities of a central government is to stem the spread of disease, regardless of source.

Needle exchange programs have proved themselves as relatively inexpensive and highly effective at doing this. I think that such programs exemplify tax dollars wisely spent.

The argument that such programs fail to instill a sense of personal responsibility in addicts is also nonsense. Drug addicts do not have any such sense; otherwise they wouldn’t be drug addicts.

I certainly agree that a society can neither condone nor overlook addiction-oriented crimes. At some point, some addicts prove that they’re not likely to succeed at rehabilitative efforts and we need to draw the line at some point. But this has nothing to do with needle exchange efforts.

People, drug addicts or otherwise, are going to survive using whichever means they perceive that they need. Addicts run the gamut from teenagers to well-dressed articulate professionals to obvious rotten toothed, dirty, smelly washouts who inhabit skid row.

They all have some things in common, though. They’re going to get their fix with or without clean needles. They’re as likely as the rest of us to engage in sexual activity if an opportunity presents itself.

Since many are married, living in monogamous relationships, needle sharing plays a dominate role in spreading disease to innocent third parties, especially the unborn. Needle exchange programs reduce this and they do so very effectively.

I stated above that common sense is time relevant. At various points during human evolutionary history, everyone “knew” that the Earth was flat. It was “common” sense. The human race “knew” that our planet was the center of the universe. It was “common” sense.

The best minds of our species “knew” that the planets were attached to crystal spheres. It was, after all, the only “common” sense explanation for planetary movement, both daily and over longer periods of time.

These people were not “off the wall kooks. They were well-respected, highly educated people. They based their “common” sense on the existing state of scientific discovery.

The point is that the list of what people “knew” has always seemed endless. This tradition continues today, still under the guise of “common” sense.

We’d do well to remember that it does not require an inordinate amount of intellectual capacity to “know.” However, it takes a great amount of effort to “understand.”

Likewise, the greater our understanding becomes, the MORE we come to realize that we no longer “know” what “common” sense always assured us that we “knew.” So, take “common” sense with a grain of salt.

Let me leave you with this thought. I’ve been wearing eye glasses since I was twelve-years-old. I’m sixty-five years old now and my eyesight has gradually diminished to being one step removed from requiring a dog and a cane.

Is this age related? Or is it, as well-established Catholic “common” sense has always dictated, irrefutable evidence of masturbatory abuse? If it’s the latter, there are far worse ways to go blind, “common” sense notwithstanding.

Next week… see you then.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Irrefutable logic MY butt!

By Joseph Walther

I won’t bore you with subject-matter detail, but I was privy to two people engrossed in a heated debate last Friday. Between the two of them, they dropped the label, “irrefutable logic” seven times. As I listened—they knew that I was listening, too—both debaters appeared intellectually adept in matters logical.

“Logic” is a term used loosely by many people from myriad educational backgrounds. I’ve heard the phrase, “I AGREE with your logic,” used hundreds of times by many people over the course of my life. However, I’ve heard, “I DISAGREE with your logic,” even more.

We tend to have no problems with those who agree with us. It’s those who disagree that tend to drive us batty. In fact, this idea formed one of the fundamental motivations behind this BLOG’s title: The True Facts!

At best, whether you agree or disagree with people’s logic, you need to be careful when stating your own positions. As is often the case, many statements may be devoid of logic to begin with.

Consequently, agreeing or disagreeing has no meaning other than to point out that the one in agreement, or disagreement, is just as confused as the one who made the original statement. In other words, it often tends to boil down to the blind attempting to lead the blind.

Formal, legitimate logic is nothing more than an argument consisting of a list of statements called premises. Following the premises is a final statement called a conclusion.

However, the process is based on well established rules of formal logic, not to mention at least one, mostly overlooked, MAJOR assumption, the absolute truth of the stated premises.

We have to examine the conjunction of an argument’s premises. If the premises imply an argument’s conclusion, we deem the argument as valid. Of course, this is the way some stodgy old philosophy professor would say it.

A normal person, with a 3-digit IQ, would simply tell you that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion is true!

Most of the time, it isn’t the logic behind the premises that causes people to suspect the absolute validity of an argument’s conclusion. It’s a failure to acknowledge that MAJOR assumption… the one I mentioned above.

An argument’s conclusion may be perfectly valid. However, its validity does NOT guarantee the TRUTH of its premises. As such, neither can it guarantee the TRUTH of its conclusion.

Stated another way, it may be a perfectly logical true conclusion that is based on a huge pile of untrue bovine excrement.

Be careful! There are inherent flaws in declaring statements as “logical/illogical.” The most common one is the degree of emotional investment on the part of those doing the arguing.

The higher the degree of emotional investment, the more susceptible such people are to the unintended consequences of self-delusion.

At one point in our evolutionary history, people “knew” that the Earth was flat. They all “knew” that Earth was the center of the Universe. At various other points people “knew” other things that, thanks to today’s facts, WE know to have been “just plain stupid.”

Note, however, that this does not mean that our ancestors were stupid. It simply means that, based on the “scientific” premises of the times, they believed their conclusions to have been true.

Humans are highly susceptible to self-delusion. Pre-conceived notions often trump disproving facts. When people believe something to be true, unless contrary evidence is overwhelming, they will adjust the facts to fit their pre-conceived notions rather than revise them to fit the facts.

This applies to ALL humans without exception, scientists in particular. In fact, when scientists fall prey to this kind of behavior, the consequences can be devastating; which is why scientists should NOT guess.

Scientists who theorize BEFORE they have facts to back up their theories inevitably begin to revise the FACTS to fit their theories rather than revise their theories to fit the facts.

The one consolation, whenever scientists do this, is that scientific critical thinking eventually lays waste to the scientifically ridiculous. The problem, though, is that most non-scientists, at least the ones in this country, don’t DO science.

After all, there is math involved in this stuff! Right? At any rate, the sad fact that most non-scientists do NOT do science gives rise to an ever-increasing onslaught of episodes of scientific prostitution.

So, the next time you hear people talk about what is logical and what is not logical, ask them which assumptions, if any, they have made and whether they have independently validated the truth of their premises.

No matter which subject they’re speaking of, I’m betting two things. The first is that they have no idea what you’re talking about. The second is that their minds have already been made up and they’ll be in no mood to be confused with facts.

Tune in again next Sunday. I’ll be revealing more truths just as soon as I find out what they are.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

I'm NOT apathetic; I just don't give a hoot!

By Joseph Walther

It’s only early November, 2007. Elections are over a year away. It’s not so much that the politicking has already started; it’s that it’s been going on for close to 7-months, now! And, THIS is local politicking.

Nationally, it’s been going on, in earnest, for over a year. The Media—electronic, print, and blogosphere—have been inundating all of us to freaking DEATH with this stuff! Mediocrity at its finest.

A major problem for me is that most, at least 99.9%, of the local political windbaggery pertains to stuff outside of my home state. It involves mostly issues in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Yes! Local stuff that is meaningless to ME.

I can’t turn the TV on without seeing one or more political wannabes personally trashing their political wannabe opponents. And, seldom do such ads pertain to Delaware politicians.

The reason for it is the fact that Delaware is part of the Philadelphia metropolitan broadcast market, which includes Central/South New Jersey, all of Delaware, and Eastern Pennsylvania.

I live in a thriving republic called Delaware. It consists of 2,489 square miles—1,955 in land and 535 in water. Whenever I’m in other states and tell people that I live in Delaware, they want to know if it’s in Pennsylvania.

The point is that Delaware would amount to no more than a nice-sized county in upper Pennsylvania. Yet, we Delawareans, per-capita, have to listen to an endless stream of stupid, nonsensical, and worthless political TV ads that perpetually depict the sorry-assed state of political nonsense in other states.

It’s just not fair, I tell you. We have our OWN crop of sorry-assed political nonsense to deal with, along with our share of political morons who perpetuate the stuff.

Politicians are politicians. They transcend state boundaries. As in the rest of the fifty United States, most of them don’t care a hoot about the people they represent. They’re way too busy catering to “special interests.”

As well, we Delawareans can’t get enough voters to the polls at election time to “throw the bums out.” Perhaps if we did this a couple of times every fifteen or so years, they’d start paying more attention to us. But, don’t hold your breath. And, it’s getting worse, not better.

On the national level, the process has reached a point where there isn’t even the slightest attempt at political sincerity and seriousness. Note the primary debates. They’re no longer debates at all. They’ve come to be nothing more than multiple monologues with witnesses.

I look in on the debates, both sides, from time to time. I don’t do it to hear what the candidates have to say. They never say anything beyond their party’s line, while trying to fool all of us into thinking that THEY’LL be different.

I tune in just to watch the moderators. They ask positively stupid questions that have no bearing on reality. They spare no effort in trying to outdo each other in ineptness and foolishness.

They seldom attempt to hold a candidate’s feet to the fire with meaningful questions with follow-ups to confirm meaning. And, even when they do, they permit the candidates to spew out the same old stale party-line rhetoric, which, most of the time, has nothing to do with the original question.

The real entertainment value is in watching the moderators trying to project more intellect than they actually possess. While I’ve always respected Tim Russert of Meet the Press fame, even he has begun to sound like a moron.

At the last Democratic primary debate he asked the candidates if they’d “PLEDGE” to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Every candidate replied that they’d do their best to prevent this from happening.

Unfortunately, this was not good enough for Russert, because they wouldn’t use the term “PLEDGE.” He seemed to have had his heart set on hearing the word “pledge.” He wasted a good 15-minutes trying to get someone to use it!

At one of the prior Republican primary debates, the moderator (Wolf Blitzer) asked the candidates, “Do you believe in evolution?” The answer choices were “YES” or “NO.” I certainly didn’t find the question offensive, but I think the required black and white response was stupidity personified.

We face real dangers in today’s world. Terrorism is serious business. Nuclear proliferation is serious business. Securing our borders is serious business. War, at all levels, is serious business. Finding ways to obtain affordable health care coverage is serious business. Solvent Social Security and Medicare systems are serious issues.

But, turning our lives and future over to a central government that has divided itself into hostile parties, both of which cannot agree on anything other than the notion that the other side sucks, is far more dangerous.

The Republican leadership spends way too much time hoping that we voters have NOT noticed how they have become the party of humongous government on a spending spree. Or, that a large degree of moral corruptness seems to have penetrated the party.

And, they most certainly want us to forget how they’ve managed, along with the Democrats, to screw up the execution of the Iraq war… beyond salvation, or that they seem to now be looking at repeating it in Iran.

The Democrats, on the other hand, lost their identity a few decades ago. Their leadership is still slinking around hoping that we have not noticed that they still have no idea what they stand for.

The voters don’t give a damn anymore. It isn’t because we’re clueless about things. We know, generally speaking, what we have to do to solve our problems.

Unfortunately, the media has gone above and beyond in its attempt to bring mediocrity to a new level. They not only permit political candidates to keep telling us things we already know, they encourage them to keep doing it.

The media will spend months over whether Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO, or whether Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith will permit him to govern without prejudice, or how many times Giuliani has been married, or whether a candidate thinks it’s OK for boys to kiss. It goes on and on and on… ridiculousness ad infinitum!

Unfortunately, critical issues remain unaddressed, not to mention the fact that specifics are not permitted into discussions. God forbid that they ever force candidates to spell out what has to be done, how to go about it, and how much it will cost.

I’ll “pledge” my support to the first candidate of either party who will look the American people straight in their eyes without giving us the impression that we’re a bunch of non-thinking morons, lay out what WE, ALL of us, have to do to get ourselves back on track, and challenge us to DO it.

We Americans can do the seemingly impossible when competent leadership challenges us to do so. We proved our mettle in two world wars. We were the world leader in science, medicine, and technological innovation for decades. But, I’m not so sure anymore.

As a nation, we’d better locate some substantive leadership and get back to minding the store… quickly. If we don’t, coping with the problems generated by global warming will be child’s play compared to getting used to the unpleasantness of losing our way of life.

See you next week. Hopefully George Bush and his band of merry men and women will not have started another war by then. I know well-meaning advisors have tried to dissuade him from this. Unfortunately, in their attempts to explain it to him, they keep forgetting to bring the sock puppets to the oval office.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.