You're viewing an archive page. To see the current content on wickens.ca, please go to the main page.

30 January 2003  

PipesWatch

Daniel Pipes, who was grudgingly permitted to be heard at York University earlier this week, was interviewed on CBC Radio's The Current this morning. You can hear it here (RealAudio), bracketed by two anti-war poem readings (start 2 minutes in to skip the Andrew Motion wannabe). I don't think it's my imagination that The Current, which is only a few months old, is even more consistently biased toward the left than the CBC usually is. Host Anna Maria Tremonti's antagonism toward Pipes is apparent in the interview. Perhaps that, or the stress of the last week or so, accounted for Pipes' equally apparent defensiveness. Whatever it was, I don't think he won many people over this morning.

11:10 PM |

Blogger on the Run

Best of luck to fellow Toronto blogger (and NDP elections monitor) David Artemiw, who is gearing up to run his first half and full marathons. (Hey, David, maybe you could blog your marathon like this guy did.) Me, I'm sticking to shorter distances this year, at least until July, by which time I hope to have broken 20 minutes in the 5K. Now if I could only get motivated to actually train for these races.

10:05 PM |

29 January 2003  

Lomborg Gets Support from Academics

Eugene Volokh has information on a petition signed by Danish academics prtotesting Lomborg's censure. It sounds heartening. Looks like they read the report. It's all an honest person has to do to see what an injustice the ruling was.

10:30 AM |

28 January 2003  

Quick SOTU Review

• Urging ban on all forms of human cloning.
• Pouring billions into hydrogen car development. Bizarre.
• $15 billion for AIDS prevention and treatment — in Africa.

• "[T]he United States supports [the] aspirations [of the Iranian people] to live in freedom."
• On the UN inspections: "America's purpose is more than to follow a process. It is to achieve a result."
• "[T]he course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others."
• "We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

10:53 PM |

Now That They're Both Obsolete...

As we all know, Beta was a superior product that lost out to the inferior VHS due to mere marketing issues. Right?

In other news: If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.

10:44 AM |

27 January 2003  

Someone Send This to Sheryl Crow

I try to restrain myself from posting Lileks links or quotes — really, I do — because I know you all read him anyway (you do read Lileks daily don't you?), but this is too hard to resist. He writes about a feature in his paper that solicited the opinions of ordinary people on terrorism:

One of the speakers quoted in the article said we’d insulted Arab cultures: “Long after the Gulf War was over, we had arms depots outside of mosques, American servicewomen dressed inappropriately for where they were.” So women shouldn’t be in the military? No, of course they should serve. So they shouldn’t be posted to the Middle East? No, they should have the same opportunities as men. So they should wear the veil while they’re on the base? No, but we have to understand that their presence upsets the local culture. So you support overturning the governments that impose strict miserable sexist regulations on females? No, we just have to realize how they see us. And then we do what? I don’t understand the question. Once we realize that they see us as a Godforsaken culture that lets women drive cars AND planes AND wear shorts and thongs, AND dance with someone they just met five minutes ago AND have a day job operating machine guns, then what? Well, we enter into a cross-cultural dialogue that enables a syncretic process aimed at facilitating strategies of coexistence. Yes, but what if they want to kill us because we actually think that their concepts of female servitude are negotiable? Well, I don’t accept your definitions; I think we have to change the terms of the debate so violence is never an option. It’s an option for them. It’s Job One, as the Ford ads used to say - oh, look, it’s a fellow with a bomb-belt, running towards us. Should I shoot him? Violence never solves anything. It’s about to solve you, ma’am. It’s about to solve you for good.

10:05 AM |

26 January 2003  

Lomborg in the WSJ

How did I miss this? Bjørn Lomborg writes about his rebuke from the DCSD in the Wall Street Journal. And WSJ readers respond.

(Incidentally, one reason posting has been so light this past week is that I'm researching and writing a longer post related to the Lomborg controversy. I got an email last week from one of the scientists who filed a complaint against Lomborg and it's a response to him. I expect to have it up later this week.)

11:50 PM |

I'm Gagging, but Not From the Smoke

I haven't smoked in three years, don't live in Delaware, and don't plan on visiting the Diamond State any time soon, but this still freaks me out a little.

11:37 PM |

Once Upon a Time in Blogdom

Check out the new blog of literate cinephile Ian Hamet.

09:57 PM |

I Am Not Making This Up

Dave Barry has a blog. Ken Layne assures us it's real.

08:54 PM |

Punditry

Speaking of CNN, I just did a double-take when I heard the anchor wrap up a news summary that included reporting on Germany and France's opposition to war against Iraq. "And that's the news from the weak," she said. Or was it "news from the week"? Works either way.

07:12 PM |

Dogmas of War

I just heard Janeane Garofalo on CNN moaning about the evils of "unilateral imperialism" and how she won't be a willing participant in a war against Iraq. When it was pointed out to her by the anchor that some people might wonder why they should listen to a celebrity's opinions on Middle-East policy, Garofalo said she thinks she's as informed as most Americans and if Americans are uninformed, it's the fault of the "mainstream media." I didn't see the whole thing but the transcript looks, um, interesting. I guess I should have seen this coming, though: a look at Garofalo's IMDB profile reveals she appeared in Michael Moore's TV Nation.

06:59 PM |

23 January 2003  

Key to the City

Whenever I hear the anti-Microsoft zealots go into attack mode over the latest obscure, difficult to exploit security hole discovered in Explorer or Outlook, I wonder what would happen if people paid the same level of attention to real-life, physical security as they do to digital security. Now I know the answer:

A security researcher has revealed a little-known vulnerability in many locks that lets a person create a copy of the master key for an entire building by starting with any key from that building.

10:09 PM |

22 January 2003  

Sanity Reigns

From FOXNews.com:

In a major victory for the fast food industry, a federal judge Wednesday dismissed a widely watched suit in which McDonald's hamburgers and French fries were blamed for children's obesity.

Maybe this will help stem the tide of similar idiocies like this.

05:09 PM |

18 January 2003  

Will the Real Lileks Please Stand Up?

Should Lileks ever decide he's bleated his last Bleat, don't worry, we have his replacement lined up already.

12:55 AM |

17 January 2003  

ARI Guy vs. PETA

Robert Tracinski, senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, and syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate, will appear this Sunday, January 19, on CNN's program "Next @ CNN" in opposition to a spokesperson for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). The program airs live at 4 P.M. Eastern and replays at 2 A.M. ET Monday. "NEXT@CNN" is produced by CNN's Science and Technology Unit, and hosted by CNN's Renay San Miguel. Please check your local listings for program times.

05:22 PM |

Peikoff on Abortion

From a new ARI op-ed by Leonard Peikoff:

Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms "pro-life" and "right to life" to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.

Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase "a woman's right to choose." Does she have the right to choose murder? That's what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.

02:54 PM |

16 January 2003  

Another Blogroll Update

I keep thinking of sites I've forgotten to include in my rapidly-expanding list over there, so here we go again. Debuting today in the wickens.ca Sites of Note list are:

• Initium, the blog of the Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism;
• The Radar Screen, by an Objectivist who chooses to remain anonymous for career reasons (wow, is Objectivism a firing offense now? On the other hand, maybe he's right to be worried);
• Sid's Blog of Doom, by another Objectivist, Sid Cammeresi;
  
• and lastly, a struggling little outfit I've decided in my magnanimity to bless with a sorely needed link, Little Green Footballs.

11:59 PM |

Affirmative Reaction

Considering how fresh the Lott controversy is and how easy it would have been to do nothing, it's encouraging that President Bush has decided to oppose the University of Michigan's racial preference program before the Supreme Court. Principled stands like this one are as welcome as they are rare from the political right these days.

By the way, just in case you were at all convinced by talk about the U of M's policy being a benign thing, with race only one factor being considered along with many others, take a look at this from the FAQ on the case at the Center for Individual Rights:

[T]he College adds 20 bonus points to the admissions index of [black, Hispanic, and Native American] applicants, such that preferred-race applicants with B-averages are treated as equivalent to white, Asian, and Arab applicants with A-averages.

10:41 PM |

15 January 2003  

"Shut Up," They Explained

I've only skimmed it so far, but this looks to be a good summary of the entire Lomborg controversy, including the latest developments with the DCSD.

11:47 AM |

But When Will the Cravings Stop?

Three years ago today (it seems much longer), I quit smoking. According to this page, my risk of heart attack and stroke is almost back to normal by now. Yay, me!

10:58 AM |

14 January 2003  

The Racism of "Diversity"

The Ayn Rand Institute has just published a great op-ed piece on the evils of "diversity" by Peter Schwartz. Here's a snippet:

The advocates of "diversity" ... believe that colleges must admit not individuals, but "representatives" of various races. They believe that those representatives have certain ideas innately imprinted on their minds, and that giving preferences to minority races creates a "diversity" of viewpoints on campus. They have the quota-mentality, which holds that in judging someone, the salient fact is the racial collective to which he belongs.

This philosophy is why racial division is growing at our colleges. The segregated dormitories, the segregated cafeterias, the segregated fraternities—these all exist, not in spite of the commitment to "diversity," but because of it. The overriding message of "diversity," transmitted by the policies of a school's administration and by the teachings of a school's professors, is that the individual is defined by his race. What, then, is a more loyal adherence to that message than the desire to associate with members of one's own race and to regard others as belonging to an alien tribe?

If racism is to be rejected, it is the premise of individualism, including individual free will, that must be upheld. There is no way to bring about racial integration except by completely disregarding color. There is no benefit in being exposed to the thoughts of a black person as opposed to a white person; there is a benefit only in interacting with individuals, of any race, who have rational viewpoints to offer.

11:06 PM |

Bourne on Bjørn

The Volokh Conspiracy has posted a letter from Stephen Bourne, the chief executive of Lomborg's publisher. An excerpt:

[T]he campaign of opposition has meant that I have to deal with rather more attacks on Dr Lomborg's work than plaudits. But be assured: we are not discouraged by all this, as we believe that Dr Lomborg wrote the book in the spirit of honest intellectual debate and enquiry, which, after all, is what academia is all about (or should be)....

What has surprised us in all this is the vehemence of the opposition. Clearly, Dr Lomborg's propositions are a threat to certain environmental lobby interests and beliefs - and I respect those concerns. But I am disappointed in those who would suppress the debate and exercise intellectual censorship.

05:23 PM |

Even More on Lomborg

Sorry if you're getting tired of all these Lomborg posts. The whole thing obviously fascinates me. In our latest exciting installment, we hear from the other side; i.e., the wrong one. Despite my disagreement with them, these sites nevertheless have interesting information and perspectives on the brouhaha: bertramonline.com and John Quiggin.

02:18 PM |

All Consuming on Lomborg

All Consuming is a great place to track all the latest weblog commentary on the controversy over Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist. (Via Jon Udell.)

11:29 AM |

13 January 2003  

Humane Factors

Today's Bleat is required reading for anyone involved in the design of software. The account of Lileks' travails in helping his brother-in-law use his video editing software contains this heartbreaking quote, which is going up on my wall at work: "Jean-Charles said that the program made him feel stupid, because he couldn't figure out the simplest tasks."

10:05 AM |

12 January 2003  

Moral Majority, By Definition

Natalie Solent isn't buying Greenpeace's idea of ethical standards.

09:54 PM |

More Lomborg

Great analysis by Ken Parish of the Lomborg "scientific dishonesty" ruling:

The Danes certainly know how to run a kangaroo court! ... [A]s Uncle from ABC Watch has already observed, the DCSD's "finding" against Lomborg effectively concluded that he had been guilty of unintentional dishonesty, a fascinating concept until now unknown in any legal system outside a George Orwell novel.

02:14 PM |

There's Magic in the Air

What is going on with the world? CNN reports that "[h]undreds of angry Malawians hounded a senior political figure from his house and stoned him late Wednesday, accusing him of harboring vampires."

Blantire Urban Governor Eric Chiwaya, a member of the ruling United Democratic Front, was the latest victim of a bizarre rumor that the country's government is colluding with vampires to collect human blood for international aid agencies.

The... government collapsed yesterday because of a row about a phenomenon associated more commonly with the medieval period rather than the 21st century: witchcraft....

The Arctic territory's home rule government, in office for only 37 days, fell apart because of its senior civil servant's penchant for what some politicians called "witch-doctoring and other mumbo jumbo" and others "plain exorcism".

The affair centres on the activities of Jens Lyberth, who called upon the services of a healer to drive evil spirits from the government's offices in Nuuk, Greenland's capital.

"When you move into new premises, it's normal to air the room and give the walls some fresh paint," he said, explaining why he had hired Maannguaq Berthelsen to "drive negative energy" from the building.

(Second link, ironically, via The Corner, which is very selective in the mysticism it ridicules and that which it promotes.)

12:38 PM |

10 January 2003  

What Do Bloggers Drive?

Damian surveys bloggers on their transportation choices. This is all I have to remember my old car by. Sniff.

09:46 PM |

Reason on Lomborg

Reason's Charles Paul Freund takes on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty:

It's interesting to observe how impressively Denmark resolves issues of science that arise within its borders: by pronouncement. This saves a lot of time that is otherwise wasted on observation, experiment, analysis, and debate.... Nor is there any reason to question the disinterestedness of such Committees, since their own witness to their own objectivity is so conveniently placed within their own pronouncement.

Most impressive of all, however, is the manner with which this process has approached the question of evidence. What instances of Lomborg's dishonesty have the Committees cited in support of their pronouncement? This is where they've covered themselves with glory. Evidence is beneath the Committees' contempt; they've cited none. That would have opened the door to a rebuttal on the merits. Why be bothered?

06:36 PM |

9 January 2003  

The Economist on Lomborg

The Economist weighs in on the Lomborg controversy:

The panel seems to regard [the anti-Lomborg articles in Scientific American] as disinterested science, rather than counter-advocacy from committed environmentalists. Incredibly, the complaints of these self-interested parties are blandly accepted at face value. Mr Lomborg's line-by-line replies to the criticisms are not reported. On its own behalf, the panel offers not one instance of inaccuracy or distortion in Mr Lomborg's book: not its job, it says. On this basis it finds Mr Lomborg guilty of dishonesty.

The panel's ruling—objectively speaking—is incompetent and shameful.

03:36 PM |

Sullivan on Lomborg

Andrew Sullivan writes today (second item) on the Lomborg situation:

No factual errors have been found in Lomborg's book; no unethical scholarship; only provocative arguments designed to get people to think again about their assumptions about how best to protect and preserve our natural inheritance. But in leftist Europe, criticizing the Green Orthodoxy today is a little like criticizing the Curia in sixteenth century Italy. Lomborg has effectively been called to the Office of the Inquisition; and his reputation has been vilely smeared. I hope he's holding up. Dissidence is never easy. And the left is simply brutal in the enforcement of its own doctrines. Hang in there, Bjorn. Most decent people see a vilification campaign for what it is.

09:29 AM |

8 January 2003  

Lomborg Responds to "Scientific Dishonesty" Charge

An update on this entry; Lomborg has responded:

The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) has found that I am "systematically one-sided" in a decision handed down 7 January 2003. Here they exclusively rely on the critique from Scientific American 2002 without taking my rebuttal into account (read here). You can also read my press release response.

The ruling on the matter of scientific dishonesty from the DCSD

– a comment by Bjørn Lomborg

In the beginning of last year several complaints regarding my book ‘The Sceptical Environmentalist’ were handed in to the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (the DCSD). Naturally, I have been looking forward to being cleared of the charges of scientific dishonesty. Therefore I have submitted my comments on many of the accusations to DCSD.

Unfortunately the DCSD has made their decision without taking a position to the content of the complaints. The DCSD has ruled that ‘it is not DCSD's remit to decide who is right in a contentious professional issue’. I find this ruling inexplicable and it means that there is still no ruling about the numerous complaints put forth in public. So I maintain that the complaints of the plaintiffs are unfounded.

The main conclusion by DCSD finds that my book is ‘clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice’ because of systematically biased selection of data and arguments. But since the DCSD has neglected to take their position on the technical scientific disputes their conclusions are completely unfounded. The DCSD does not give a single example to demonstrate their claim of a biased choice of data and arguments. Consequently, I don’t understand this ruling. It equals an accusation without defining the crime.

The DCSD, however, refers to the criticism of my book put forth by 4 scientists in Scientific American. This is a one-year-old discussion, which I participated in at that time, e.g. by writing a 34-page response. But in spite of the fact that the DCSD received a copy of my response, they refer to none of my arguments. In fact the only thing that the DCSD does is to repeat the Scientific American arguments over 6 pages, while only allowing my arguments 1½ line. This seems to reflect an extremely biased procedure. On top of that the DCSD has failed to evaluate the scientific points in dispute outlined in Scientific American article.

My initial response when I read the conclusion of the DCSD was one of surprise and discomfort. But when reading through the complete ruling I found it to be:

• Inexplicable in its negligence to take a position on the complaints of the plaintiffs
  
• Undocumented by ruling the book to be systematically biased without documenting this with a single example
  
• Biased by its reference to only one side of the comprehensive discussion concerning my book (the plaintiffs side)

07:28 PM |

Scary, Viler Moore? Not If You've Been Paying Attention

This Independent writer seems genuinely surprised that Michael Moore, author of a book entitled Stupid White Men, is a racist. Ms. Alibhai-Brown went with her son to see Moore's show in London and writes that they were "so enraged at one point that we almost walked out."

It was when Moore went into a rant about how the passengers on the planes on 11 September were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody.

(Via Dollars & Crosses. Oh, and I see LGF had this yesterday, too.)

02:07 PM |

And So Witty, Too!

It's rare that I get such considered, intelligent comments on my posts so I wanted to make sure you don't miss this one. Not only does the writer display a devastatingly keen insight but also an endearing modesty, choosing, as he or she does, not to provide a real name or email address.

01:42 PM |

Will It Be 500 Years Before He Gets Justice?

Over a year ago I called Bjørn Lomborg a "modern-day Galileo." Today, Nick Schulz at TCS writes that the attacks against Lomborg have "now reached a new low, with the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) playing the 17th Century Catholic Church to Lomborg's heretical Galileo." He continues:

The DCSD has written a 16-page book report denouncing the Dane for publishing a book that they say falls "within the concept of scientific dishonesty."

"The publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice," the Committees concluded. This smear was then picked up and amplified by The New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications.

But the Committees' report is nothing more than a rehashing of the complaints already lodged against Lomborg, complaints that are largely without merit or that he has refuted.

Read the rest of Shulz's article here.

I don't see a repsponse from Lomborg yet, but he is usually very good about writing detailed replies to his critics, even if they aren't original. It would be understandable, though, if he's getting a bit tired of that.

01:22 PM |

7 January 2003  

Fraser Folks Still Fighting

The new Fraser Forum has lots of sane commentary on the politics and science of Kyoto.

10:07 PM |

5 January 2003  

Blogroll Update

Three new Sites of Note appear leftward: Capitalism Magazine's Dollars & Crosses, Chip Joyce's About the War, and Paul Blair's Interesting… — Objectivists all!

03:06 PM |

3 January 2003  

Fighting Innumeracy in the News

The latest Fraser Institute mailing brings to my attention CANSTATS, a "research organization [whose] aim is to promote the accurate use of scientific, technical and social science research in the media." It's an excellent idea and their content appears to be well organized and researched. Turns out that, like me, these guys also smelled a rat when they read in the Star last fall that 16,000 Canadian lives could be saved by Kyoto. Their takedown, however, is far more detailed and devastating than my efforts were.

11:43 PM |

A Lightbulb Joke

At a site linked by Agenda Bender, I came across this commentary on the fact that a lightbulb in California has been burning steadily for over 100 years:

further reasons why profits=scam. if they can make a lightbulb in 1901 that burns for over 100 years, then you know that we should be living in a world where we don't have to replace bulbs. but then there's not much profit in that is there? apply the same reasons for why we don't have autos that run on solar power. or at the very least, one that can go 500mpg.

Update: The original commentary has been updated to address this post. I wish this blog had a tagline; if it did, I'd change it immediately to "Opinions of an egotistical reality monopolist."

11:05 PM |

Occam Those Religionists Make Things So Complicated?

Scientific dialog
Q: Where did the Universe come from?
A: We don't know.

Theist dialog
Q: Where did the Universe come from?
A: A big magic dude that lives in the sky.
Q: But, where did he come from?
A: We don't know.

11:03 PM |

Happy New Year!

I'm back. No resolutions to share, no best or worst of 2002 lists, no predictions for 2003, so let's just get started, shall we?

11:02 PM |