Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Science fiction scenarios and public engagement with science

Science fiction has been a popular genre at least since Jules Verne’s 19th century work, and arguably longer still. But can it have practical value as well as be a form of escapist entertainment? Clark Miller and Ira Bennett of ASU suggest that it has potential for use in improving the capacity of the general public “to imagine and reason critically about technological futures” and for being integrated into technology assessment processes (“Thinking longer term about technology: is there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures?" Science and Public Policy 35(8), October 2008, pp. 597-606).

Miller and Bennett argue that science fiction can provide a way to stimulate people to wake from “technological somnambulism” (Langdon Winner’s term for taking for granted or being oblivious to sociotechnical changes), in order to recognize such changes, realize that there may be alternative possibilities and that particular changes need not be determined, and to engage with deliberative processes and institutions that choose directions of change. Where most political planning is short-term and based on projections that simply extend current trends incrementally into the future, science fiction provides scenarios which exhibit “non-linearity” by involving multiple, major, and complex changes from current reality. While these scenarios “likely provide...little technical accuracy” about how technology and society will actually interact, they may still provide ideas about alternative possibilities, and in particular to provide “clear visions of desirable--and not so desirable--futures.”

The article begins with a quote from Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute recommending that “hard science fiction” be used to aid in “long-term” (20+ year) prediction scenarios; she advises, “Don’t think of it as literature,” and focus on the technologies rather than the people. Miller and Bennett, however, argue otherwise--that not only is science fiction useful for thinking about longer-term consequences, but that the parts about the people--how technologies actually fit into society--are just as, if not more important than the ideas about the technologies themselves.

It ends with some examples of use of science fiction in workshops for nanotechnology researchers which have been conducted by Bennett and suggested uses in science education and in “society’s practices and institutions for public engagement and technology assessment.” About the former suggested use, the authors write that “The National Science Foundation, which has by and large not been in the business of supporting science fiction, might be encouraged to fund training and/or networking exercises that would foster greater interaction among scientists and fiction writers.”

While some steps have been taken to promote interaction between scientists and fiction writers--most notably the National Academy of Sciences’ Science and Entertainment Exchange project headed by executive director Jennifer Ouellette who spoke at last year’s The Amazing Meeting 7--this interaction is mostly one-way. The project is conceived of as a way for science to be accurately communicated to the general public through entertainment, rather than facilitating the generation of ideas for technological innovation and scientific development from the general public or the entertainment stories that are created. The SEE promotes the idea of collaboration between scientists and entertainment producers on the creative works of entertainment, but not necessarily directing creative feedback into science or building new capacities in science and technology, except indirectly by providing the general public with inspiration about science. Similarly, the Skeptrack and Science Track at the annual Dragon*Con science fiction convention in Atlanta provide ways for scientists and skeptics to interact with science fiction fans (and creators of science fiction works), but the communication is primarily in one direction via speakers and panels, with an opportunity for Q&A. (Unlike the notion of a SkeptiCamp, where all participants are potentially on an equal basis, with everyone given the opportunity to be a presenter.)

[P.S. The Long Now Foundation is an organization that makes the Foresight Institute’s time horizon look short--their time frame is the next 10,000 years, with a focus on how to make extremely long-term projects work and how to create an institutional framework that can persist for extremely long periods of time. (The obligatory science fiction references are Walter M. Miller, Jr.’s A Canticle for Leibowitz and Neal Stephenson’s Anathem.)]

[A slightly different version of the above was written for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. Thanks to Judd A. for his  comments--he raised the concern that SkeptiCamp is connected to a rationalist form of skepticism that is concerned to "narrow the range of 'acceptable' beliefs" rather than widen it.  While this may be true, depending on what the class of "acceptable" beliefs is prior to applying a skeptical filter, it need not be--applying scientific methodology and critical thinking can also open up possibilities for individuals.  And if the initial set of beliefs includes all possibilities, converting that set to knowledge must necessarily involve narrowing rather than expanding the range, as there are many more ways to go wrong than to go right.  But this criticism points out something that I've observed in my comparison of skepticism to Forteanism--skepticism is more concerned about avoiding Type I errors than Type II errors, while Forteans are more concerned about avoiding Type II errors than Type I errors, and these are complementary positions that both need representation in society.]

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Books Read in 2009

Once again, here's my annual list of books I've read in the last year. I did much better in quantity than last year--going back to school helped a bit, even though the vast majority of reading for class was articles that aren't reflected in this list.
  • John Baer, James C. Kaufman, and Roy F. Baumeister, editors, Are We Free? Psychology and Free Will
  • Dan Barker, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists
  • Jeff Benedict, Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage
  • Simon Blackburn, Truth: A Guide
  • Paul Boghossian, Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism
  • Fred P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Anniversary Edition
  • Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar... Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes (not very funny, and thinks "all platypuses are mammals" is analytic and a priori, p. 67--is that what they teach at Harvard?)
  • Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
  • Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
  • Philip K. Dick, The Man in the High Castle
  • Douglas R. Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop
  • Jean-Roch Laurence and Campbell Perry, Hypnosis, Will, and Memory: A Psycho-Legal History
  • Penn Jillette, How to Cheat Your Friends at Poker: The Wisdom of Dickie Richard
  • Paul Krassner, In Praise of Indecency: The Leading Investigative Satirist Sounds Off on Hypocrisy, Censorship, and Free Expression
  • Paul Krassner, Who's to Say What's Obscene? Politics, Culture, and Comedy in America Today
  • Oscar Levant, The Unimportance of Being Oscar
  • Oscar Levant, A Smattering of Ignorance
  • Ben Mezrich, Busting Vegas: A True Story of Monumental Excess, Sex, Love, Violence, and Beating the Odds
  • Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future
  • Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
  • Vincent Price, I Like What I Know: A Visual Autobiography
  • W.V. Quine, Methods of Logic, Fourth Edition
  • Rudy Rucker, The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul: What Gnarly Computation Taught Me About Ultimate Reality, the Meaning of Life, and How to Be Happy
  • Oliver Sacks, Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain
  • John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality
  • Kyrsten Sinema, Unite and Conquer: How to Build Coalitions That Win and Last
  • Jim Steinmeyer, Charles Fort: The Man Who Invented the Supernatural
  • Gore Vidal, Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia
  • T.H. White, The Once and Future King
I also read significant parts of
  • Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
  • Yaron Ezrahi, The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy
  • Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, editors, The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition
  • Michael Hulme, Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity
  • Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic (5th edition) (worked through ch. 3 on number theory and Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the appendix on second-order predicate logic, along with Boolos & Jeffrey's Computability and Logic chapter on second-order predicate logic)
  • R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie, and M.J.S. Hodge, editors, Companion to the History of Modern Science
  • Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life
(Previously: 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Skeptical Blog Anthology 2009 seeking nominations

From the Young Australian Skeptics:
Inspired by the annual The Open Laboratory, the Skeptical Blog Anthology is a printed anthology of blog posts voted the very best of 2009, managed by the Young Australian Skeptics in conjunction with the Critical Teaching Education Group (CTEG). The anthology is an attempt to bring a greater awareness of the skeptical content on blog sites and showcase some of the range and diversity in the blogosphere.

With an aim to provide text-​​based resources to classes and readers who may be interested or intrigued by what skepticism has to offer, entries from January 1st to December 1st 2009 are eligible for submission. Both a print and Portable Document Format (pdf) will be made available for purchase via Lulu​.com, with estimated printing early in 2010.

Entries can be self-​​nominated or proposed by readers of skeptical blog sites. The guidelines proposed by the popular Skeptics’ Circle are a fine indicator of the kind of content suitable for the anthology, including urban legends, the paranormal, quackery, pseudoscience, intelligent design, historical revisionism, critical thinking, skeptical parenting/​educating skeptically, superstitions, etc.
There's a submission form at the Young Aus Skeptics website.

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

The Arizona Skeptic online: vol. 1, 1987-1988

I've begun putting old issues of The Arizona Skeptic online as PDFs, starting with the old Phoenix Skeptics News, edited by Ron Harvey. Volume 2, 1988-1989, is here. An index to all issues by title, author, and subject may be found here. Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 1, July/August 1987:
  • Welcome!
  • July Meeting
  • Resource Library
  • "Cold Reading" by Jim Lippard
  • Local Radio Talk Show Features Psychics
  • Modem Users Take Note
  • "Foes Turn Up Heat: Fire walking is not so hot, skeptics of seminars say" by Simon Fisher, Tribune
  • Postscript by Jim Lippard
  • Book Reviews
  • Local Conference on Health Fraud
  • Upcoming Phoenix Skeptics Meetings
Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 2, September/October 1987:
  • August Meeting: Hans Sebald on witchcraft
  • September Meeting: Charles Cazeau on prophecies of Nostradamus
  • Surveyor Needed
  • Randi on Faith Healers (interviewed by Jim Lippard and Mike Norton)
  • "Health Fraud isn't 'snake oil' anymore" by Phyllis Gillespie, Arizona Republic
  • "Charlatans can be spotted if you know common clues" (Arizona Republic)
  • "Proper Criticism" by Ray Hyman
  • Upcoming Meetings
Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 3, November/December 1987:
  • October Meeting: Halloween party at Hans Sebald's
  • November Meeting: James Randi psychic surgery video, Randy Jones on psychic surgery
  • Papers ignore disclaimer request on astrology columns
  • Flyers needed
  • Psychic fair
  • "Focus on You" by Jim Lippard
  • "Channeling: Believe It or Not" by Hans Sebald, Ph.D.
  • "Book Review: The Faith Healers by James Randi" reviewed by Jim Lippard
  • "On the distinction between nonbelief and disbelief" by Hans Sebald, Ph.D.
  • "Book Review: The Psychology of Transcendence by Andrew Neher" reviewed by Jim Lippard
  • Editor's Ramblings
  • Upcoming Meetings
Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 4, January/February 1988:
  • December Meeting: Jim Speiser and Marge Christenson of MUFON
  • January Meeting: Robert Dietz of ASU on creationism
  • Philip Klass Lecture
  • Skeptics Reorganized
  • Skeptics subcommittees formed
  • "Peter Popoff Came to Town" by Jim Lippard
  • "Towards a more effective organization" by Bob Guzley
  • "Update on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin" by Jim Lippard
  • New Phone Number
  • Editor's Ramblings
  • Upcoming Meetings
Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 5, March/April 1988:
  • Important Announcement!
  • February Meeting: Jeff Jacobsen on Scientology
  • Philip Klass Lecture
  • March Meeting: Mike Stackpole on claimed dangers of D&D
  • The Organization Explained!
  • "Frank Baranowski: Promoter of the Paranormal" by Jim Lippard
  • "Book Review: The New Inquisition by Robert Anton Wilson" reviewed by Jim Lippard
  • "Robert Anton Wilson and the H.E.A.D. Revolution" by Zak Woodruff
  • Editor's Ramblings
  • Upcoming Meetings
Phoenix Skeptics News, vol. 1, no. 6, May/June 1988:
  • April Meeting: James Lowell on Mexican cancer clinics
  • May Meeting: Jim Lippard on psychic detectives
  • Press coverage
  • "Turin Shroud Update" by Jim Lippard
  • "Dr. Stranges Lives Up to His Name" by Mike Stackpole
  • "Near-Death Experiences and TV" by Jim Lippard
  • "An Artistic 'Phenom'" by Ted Karren
  • "Psychic Detectives" by Jim Lippard
  • Editor's Ramblings
  • "TUSKS Tips" by Ken Morse
  • Upcoming Meetings
The last issue of this volume was the first one also distributed to the Tucson Skeptical Society (TUSKS), and prompted a change of name to The Arizona Skeptic beginning with volume 2. This was also about the time I moved to Tucson to attend graduate school at the University of Arizona (August 1988).

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Jeff Benedict and Little Pink House

This afternoon I had the pleasure of hearing writer Jeff Benedict speak about his book, Little Pink House, which is the story behind the Kelo v. New London case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. That case, which ruled that New London did have the right to use eminent domain to seize private property and turn it over to another private entity--effectively retranslating the Fifth Amendment's use of the words "public use" into the meaning "public benefit"--was a case I thought I was familiar with. But Benedict's talk revealed that while I was aware of some of the facts relevant to the legal case, I really had no idea about the whole story. In his short talk, he conveyed some of the events and details that did not make it to the national press, but which make the story all the more interesting. The political battles between state and city government, the plan to get Pfizer to stay in Connecticut when it was looking elsewhere, and the personalities involved made for a genuinely moving talk even when we already know how the story ends.

I look forward to reading his book.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Literary hoaxes

Now that Berkley Books has just cancelled Herman Rosenblat's Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love That Survived after the core story about how he met his wife while in a concentration camp was proven false, ABC News has put together a slide show of some other famous literary hoaxes.

The list includes, in addition to Rosenblat:

James Frey
JT Leroy
Norma Khouri
Margaret B. Jones
Misha Defonseca
Nasdijj
Anthony Godby Johnson
Lauren Stratford
Clifford Irving
Araki Yususada
Jayson Blair
Binjamin Wilkomirski
Forrest Carter
Kaavya Viswanathan
Tom Carew
Janet Cooke
The Hitler Diaries
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

There are a few others they could have covered--there are entire genres of hoaxes, like Christian conversion stories of fake Illuminati, witches, Satanists, Jesuits, and terrorists, stories of fake undercover agents and spies, stories of mind-controlled sex slaves, and so on. The Christian conversion stories are the ones I'm most familiar with, many of which have been promoted by Jack T. Chick of Chick tract fame, or have involved film producer David Balsiger (see especially footnote 7 of the linked article).

Friday, December 26, 2008

Books Read in 2008

Once again, here's my annual list of books I've read in the last year. I did somewhat worse than last year in finishing books I started, and I found last year disappointing. The piles of started but unfinished books are growing--but perhaps I can match last year's total by the end of the year (I'm only threetwo short at the moment). I've not done a good job of writing Amazon.com reviews of any of these, though I've put a few short comments on Facebook's Visual Bookshelf for a few of these. I owe Guy Harrison an Amazon.com review/blog review/etc. for his excellent book, which I recommend as a nice (and less threatening) companion piece to Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction as an introduction to atheism.

  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel
  • Matthew Chapman, 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin, and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania
  • Anderson Cooper, Dispatches from the Edge: A Memoir of War, Disasters, and Survival
  • Cory Doctorow, Little Brother
  • Cory Doctorow, Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town
  • Joseph Finder, Paranoia
  • Guy P. Harrison, 50 reasons people give for believing in a god
  • Gene Healy, The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Presidential Power
  • Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War
  • Susan Jacoby, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism
  • Robert A. Levy and William Mellor, The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom
  • Maureen McCormick, Here's the Story: Surviving Marcia Brady and Finding My True Voice
  • Mary Roach, Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex
  • William C. Speidel, Sons of the Profits
  • Jim Steinmeyer, Art & Artifice and Other Essays on Illusion
  • Jim Steinmeyer, Charles Fort: The Man Who Invented the Supernatural
  • Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
  • Carl Zimmer, Soul Made Flesh: The Discovery of the Brain--And How It Changed the World
  • Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet and How To Stop It

  • (Previously: 2007, 2006, 2005.)

    Sunday, October 12, 2008

    A measure for crackpots

    Last night at a party, a few of us were discussing some recent self-published books by crackpots that we've seen or had pushed on us. We noted that these books seem to have in common a few features. They seem to often have long rambling introductions that are missing key elements like thesis statements or an indication of what the book is about. They use words in non-standard ways, yet don't bother to explain how they are being redefined. They claim that the author has some special knowledge, yet don't provide any reason to believe it is the case.

    I had a dim recollection of having come across a "crackpot index" before somewhere, and a little bit of searching yielded Fred J. Gruenberger's December 1962 publication from the RAND Corporation titled "A Measure for Crackpots" (PDF), which offers the following scoring mechanism for distinguishing the scientist from the crackpot:

    1. Public verifiability (12 points)
    Scientists promote public verifiability; crackpots rely on revealed truth.

    2. Predictability (12 points)
    Scientists promote predictability and track their record of failure as well as success; crackpots promote wild predictions and count only successes, not failures.

    3. Controlled experiments (13 points)
    Scientists promote controlled experiments; crackpots avoid them.

    4. Occam's razor (5 points)
    Scientists prefer the simplest explanation that covers all the facts; crackpots enjoy wildly complex theories.

    5. Fruitfulness (10 points)
    Scientists prefer theories that generate new ideas and new experiments; crackpots prefer theories that produce nothing of value for further research.

    6. Authority (10 points)
    Scientists seek the endorsement and validation of known authorities and tend to obtain it if their work is valid; crackpots usually fail to obtain it.

    7. Ability to communicate (8 points)
    Scientists tend to promote clear (if sometimes dull) communications through approved channels; crackpots tend to be incomprehensible and self-published.

    8. Humility (5 points)
    Humility is a desirable (if sometimes lacking) trait in scientists; it is rare in the crackpot.

    9. Open mindedness (5 points)
    Scientists tend to qualify and carefully couch their statements as tentative based on the current evidence; crackpots tend to make absolutely certain statements that may not be challenged.

    10. The Fulton non sequitur (5 points)
    I'm more familiar with this as the "Galileo Gambit," or the common crackpot claim that "They laughed at Galileo; they're laughing at me; therefore I'm right just as Galileo was." Gruenberger uses steamboat inventor Robert Fulton in place of Galileo. This logically invalid argument is refuted by the Bozo rejoinder, which is that "they also laughed at Bozo the clown." This is a negative test, lack of the characteristic is 5 points, presence is 0.

    11. Paranoia (5 points)
    Another negative test--crackpots tend to be paranoid about their ideas being actively suppressed by conspiracy.

    12. The dollar complex (5 points)
    Another negative test. The crackpot claims immeasurable value for his discoveries as revolutionary, worthy of the Nobel prize, and world-changing.

    13. Statistics compulsion (5 points)
    The crackpot tends to use and continuously explain statistics allegedly supporting his claim, while the scientist tends to use standard methods and assume the reader is familiar with them.

    Gruenberger's index is focused on science crackpots rather than philosophy crackpots, but a number of the above features do apply to the books we were talking about.

    A more recent "Crackpot Index," also focused on physics, was created by John Baez, a mathematical physicist at the University of California, Riverside:

    A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

    A -5 point starting credit.

    1. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
    2. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
    3. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
    4. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
    5. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
    6. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
    7. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
    8. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
    9. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
    10. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
    11. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
    12. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
    13. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
    14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
    15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
    16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
    17. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
    18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
    19. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.
    20. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
    21. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
    22. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
    23. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
    24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
    25. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
    26. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
    27. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
    28. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
    29. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
    30. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
    31. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
    32. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
    33. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
    34. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
      Here's a nice crackpot response to that index.

      Wednesday, August 27, 2008

      Science books

      From Cocktail Party Physics by way of Stranger Fruit... bold the ones you've read, asterisk the ones you intend to read:
      1. Micrographia, Robert Hooke
      2. The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin
      3. Never at Rest, Richard Westfall
      4. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, Richard Feynman
      5. Tesla: Man Out of Time, Margaret Cheney
      6. The Devil's Doctor, Philip Ball
      7. The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes
      8. Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos, Dennis Overbye
      9. Physics for Entertainment, Yakov Perelman
      10. 1-2-3 Infinity, George Gamow (I've not read this, but I've read Mr. Tompkins in Paperback)
      11. The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene
      12. Warmth Disperses, Time Passes, Hans Christian von Bayer
      13. Alice in Quantumland, Robert Gilmore
      14. Where Does the Weirdness Go? David Lindley
      15. A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson
      16. A Force of Nature, Richard Rhodes
      17. Black Holes and Time Warps, Kip Thorne
      18. A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking (I listened to it on tape on a drive to the Dallas CSICOP conference in 1992)
      19. Universal Foam, Sidney Perkowitz
      20. Vermeer's Camera, Philip Steadman
      21. The Code Book, Simon Singh
      22. The Elements of Murder, John Emsley
      23. *Soul Made Flesh, Carl Zimmer (I'm currently reading this)
      24. Time's Arrow, Martin Amis
      25. The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments, George Johnson
      26. Einstein's Dreams, Alan Lightman
      27. Godel, Escher, Bach, Douglas Hofstadter
      28. The Curious Life of Robert Hooke, Lisa Jardine
      29. A Matter of Degrees, Gino Segre
      30. The Physics of Star Trek, Lawrence Krauss
      31. E=mc<2>, David Bodanis
      32. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife
      33. Absolute Zero: The Conquest of Cold, Tom Shachtman
      34. A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines, Janna Levin
      35. Warped Passages, Lisa Randall
      36. Apollo's Fire, Michael Sims
      37. Flatland, Edward Abbott
      38. Fermat's Last Theorem, Amir Aczel
      39. Stiff, Mary Roach
      40. Astroturf, M.G. Lord
      41. The Periodic Table, Primo Levi
      42. Longitude, Dava Sobel
      43. The First Three Minutes, Steven Weinberg
      44. The Mummy Congress, Heather Pringle
      45. The Accelerating Universe, Mario Livio
      46. Math and the Mona Lisa, Bulent Atalay
      47. This is Your Brain on Music, Daniel Levitin
      48. The Executioner's Current, Richard Moran
      49. Krakatoa, Simon Winchester
      50. Pythagorus' Trousers, Margaret Wertheim
      51. Neuromancer, William Gibson
      52. The Physics of Superheroes, James Kakalios
      53. The Strange Case of the Broad Street Pump, Sandra Hempel
      54. Another Day in the Frontal Lobe, Katrina Firlik
      55. Einstein's Clocks and Poincare's Maps, Peter Galison
      56. The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan
      57. The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins
      58. The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker
      59. An Instance of the Fingerpost, Iain Pears
      60. Consilience, E.O. Wilson
      61. Wonderful Life, Stephen J. Gould (haven't read this, but I've read all of his books of collected Natural History articles)
      62. Teaching a Stone to Talk, Annie Dillard
      63. Fire in the Brain, Ronald K. Siegel
      64. The Life of a Cell, Lewis Thomas
      65. Coming of Age in the Milky Way, Timothy Ferris
      66. Storm World, Chris Mooney
      67. The Carbon Age, Eric Roston
      68. The Black Hole Wars, Leonard Susskind
      69. Copenhagen, Michael Frayn
      70. From the Earth to the Moon, Jules Verne
      71. Gut Symmetries, Jeanette Winterson
      72. Chaos, James Gleick
      73. Innumeracy, John Allen Paulos
      74. The Physics of NASCAR, Diandra Leslie-Pelecky
      75. Subtle is the Lord, Abraham Pais
      I'd add some Oliver Sacks and A.R. Luria (neuroscience case studies), V.S. Ramachandran's A Brief Tour of Consciousness, Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, and some philosophy of science like Larry Laudan's Science and Relativism (nicely written in the form of a dialogue between advocates of different views), Philip Kitcher's The Advancement of Science, Thomas Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution, John Losee's A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, and Ian Hacking's Representing and Intervening. There are lots more to list, but those are a few that I've read. My science reading has leaned very strongly towards cognitive psychology, neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of science, which is only weakly represented on the above list, and on the creation/evolution debate, which isn't really represented on the above list at all, except by Darwin himself.

      Now John Lynch can tell me that I really need to read Origin of Species.

      UPDATE (August 28, 2008):

      Enhanced with P.Z. Myers' additions:
      1. Ascent of Man, Jacob Bronowski
      2. Basin and Range, John McPhee
      3. Beak of the Finch, Jonathan Weiner
      4. Chance and Necessity, Jacques Monod
      5. *Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation, Olivia Judson (reading now)
      6. *Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Sean Carroll
      7. Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, Carl Zimmer
      8. Genome, Matt Ridley
      9. Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond
      10. It Ain't Necessarily So, Richard Lewontin
      11. On Growth and Form, D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson
      12. Phantoms in the Brain, VS Ramachandran
      13. The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins
      14. The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution, Elisabeth Lloyd
      15. The Eighth Day of Creation, Horace Freeland Judson
      16. The Great Devonian Controversy, Martin Rudwick
      17. The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat, Oliver Sacks
      18. The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould
      19. The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment, Richard Lewontin
      20. Time, Love, Memory, Jonathan Weiner
      21. Voyaging and The Power of Place, Janet Browne
      22. Woman: An Intimate Geography, Natalie Angier

      Sunday, August 17, 2008

      Daniel Radosh's Rapture Ready

      Daniel Radosh has a new book out titled Rapture Ready!: Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture, which might be entertaining. There's a chapter on creationism that talks about Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, and possibly the split by Creation Ministries International, since Google Books tells me my name is mentioned on p. 279.

      Anybody at Scribner want to send me a review copy?

      Based on the reviews at Amazon.com, it sounds like Radosh gives Christian pop culture a sympathetic and even-handed portrayal that also points out its absurdities and self-contradictions, similar to the excellent documentary Hell House.

      Thursday, July 31, 2008

      A librarian responds to a parental challenge

      A parent complained about Sarah Brannen's book, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, about same-sex marriage, that was in the children's book section in the Douglas County Library system in Colorado. Librarian Jamie Larue wrote an excellent, kind, and thoughtful response to the library patron about why the library is not going to move or remove the book.

      Thursday, July 17, 2008

      Rock, Brock, and the Savings Shock

      Via Long or Short Capital comes a children's story authored by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. The blog gives two versions of the story, first from the Amazon description of the book:
      Rock and Brock may be twins, but they are as different as two twins can be. One day, their grandpa offers them a plan-for ten straight weeks on Saturday he will give them each one dollar for doing their chores. But there is a catch! Each dollar they save, he will match.

      Rock is excited-there are all sorts of things he can buy for one dollar. So each week he spends his money on something different-a toy moose head, green hair goo, white peppermint wax fangs. But while Rock is spending his money, Brock is saving his. And each week when Rock gets just one dollar, Brock’s savings get matched. By summer’s end, Brock has five hundred and twelve dollars, while Rock has none. When Rock sees what his brother has saved, he realizes he has made a mistake. But Brock shows him that it is never too late to start saving.

      And a second version based on Sheila Bair's recent urging that lenders freeze mortgage teaser rates and the government create a $50 billion loan program for mortgage holders in trouble to pay down their mortgages:
      I think it is time to tell the real story of Rock and Brock. The one, where Brock puts his money into an FDIC insured savings account, while Rock asks his friend Kerimov to hook him up with some later-untraceable source of leverage, investing the proceeds in Russian oil assets. At the end of 10 weeks, Brock’s savings bank is kaput, wiping out most of his savings. Over the same period, Rock’s oil assets have doubled, which leaves him with enough cash to purchase the operating assets of Rock’s S&L, after negotiating a free put from the Fed. And a Ferrari Enzo.
      Long or Short Capital is excellent for cynical and hilarious commentary on current financial events.


      Wednesday, July 16, 2008

      Ed Brayton on David Kupelian's latest foolishness

      Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a nice takedown of David Kupelian's article at the WorldNutDaily bemoaning how atheists are being allowed to publish books in these Christian United States. Ed shows that Kupelian has no idea what he's talking about when he writes about Christianity in American history.

      Monday, July 07, 2008

      The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

      That's the title of Vincent Bugliosi's latest book, which just reached #14 on the New York Times bestseller list on Sunday despite having virtually no mainstream media attention. It has sold 130,000 copies, but ABC Radio refused to allow an advertisement for the book on the Don Imus show, and both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report declined to show any interest in having Bugliosi on as a guest.

      The book sets out a legal case for a criminal prosecution of George W. Bush as being criminally responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

      Bugliosi, the former Los Angeles County prosecutor with a perfect record of murder prosecutions, including the prosecution of Charles Manson which he recounted in his book Helter Skelter 30 years ago, most recently authored the book Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a massive 1,612-page book that responds in detail to conspiracy theorists. That book is being made into a 10-hour miniseries by Tom Hanks for HBO. A shorter book, drawn from the content of Reclaiming History, has been published under the title Four Days in November.

      Sunday, July 06, 2008

      Orson Welles meets H.G. Wells

      A short conversation between Orson Welles and H.G. Wells (MP3) aired live on KTSA radio in San Antonio on October 28, 1940. The main subjects are the Welles' radio production of Wells' "War of the Worlds," from two years prior, the accuracy of Wells' science fiction, and a Wells-incited plug for Welles' "Citizen Kane."

      (Via Alan Dean Foster's remembrance of Arthur C. Clarke in the July/August 2008 Skeptical Inquirer.)

      Tuesday, July 01, 2008

      More on CIA extraordinary rendition flights

      I just figured out that Trevor Paglen, the co-author of Torture Taxi, a book about how planespotting was used to track information about the CIA's extraordinary rendition flights, is also the author of I Could Tell You but Then You Would Have to Be Destroyed by Me: Emblems from the Pentagon's Black World, for which he appeared on the Colbert Report. At his blog, I've learned that the pilots of the CIA rendition flights associated with Khalid El-Masri have been identified at Sourcewatch, where you can also find extensive information about the planes and the fictional owners of the companies that operate them (in particular see the companies Premier Executive Transport Services and Bayard Foreign Marketing, which have both owned the same Gulfstream V (PDF), nicknamed the "Guantanamo Bay Express").

      El-Masri, a German citizen, was kidnapped in Macedonia and taken to a CIA black site called the "Salt Pit" in Afghanistan, where he was tortured, then later released in Albania after a second order to do so by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (the first was ignored). He was taken because his name resembled that of suspected al Qaeda operative Khalid al-Masri.

      El-Masri's lawsuit against the CIA and three private companies that operated planes involved with his transport was dismissed in 2006 on grounds of state secrets privilege, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in 2007. He has also sued in Germany, where there are outstanding warrants for pilots Eric Robert Hume, James Kovalesky, and Harry Kirk Ellarbee. All three of these pilots work or worked for alleged CIA front company Aero Contractors Ltd., live in Johnston County, North Carolina and have been visited by the German press in unsuccessful attempts to interview them.

      The German warrants were passed to Interpol, but the German government declined to ask the U.S. for extradition after an informal request was given a negative reply.

      El-Masri was sent to a mental institution in 2007 after being arrested for arson and an assault on a truck-driving instructor.

      Friday, June 27, 2008

      Alister McGrath scores a conversion for the other team

      Christian theologian Alister McGrath, author of The Dawkins Delusion, managed to help persuade Norwegian astrophysicist Øystein Elgarøy that atheists had the better arguments. Elgarøy, formerly a liberal Christian, is now an atheist and a member of the Norwegian Humanist Association.

      (Hat tip to DMB at the Talk Rational forum.)

      Friday, June 06, 2008

      Dan Barker's new book

      Dan Barker has a new book coming out, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. It's available for pre-order on Amazon.com. Also check out the organization run by Dan and Annie Laurie Gaylor, the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

      Sunday, May 25, 2008

      Dave Palmer's review of Legacy of Ashes

      Dave Palmer recently finished reading Tim Weiner's book Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, and sent the following review to the SKEPTIC list on May 23. I liked it so much that I asked him if I could republish it here, and he agreed.

      -----

      So back in April, I was in a bookshop, and my eyes fell on a meaty, red-covered book called Legacy of Ashes, the History of the CIA. "Huh, that looks interesting," sez I. Then a more rational voice in my head pops up. "Are you frakking nuts? You already know a bit about that spook house, reading a book like that will only piss you off." But it was my birthday, so I HAD to have me a little something.

      Man, does it get tiresome being right ALL the time...

      This is an appalling, sickening, infuriating book, particularly since its impeccable scholarship requires one to take it seriously. Unlike your average innuendo-and-hearsay CIA book, this one is based entirely on historical and declassified government documents and on-the-record interviews with named (and heavily-footnoted) sources, usually with the most senior personnel. The author, Tim Weiner, is a Pulitzer-winning NY Times reporter who has been covering US intelligence agencies for 20 years. He's the kind of guy who just pops out for lunch with current and past CIA Directors.

      Like a lot of people, I had always assumed that the CIA might have a few massive public screwups (such as the Bay of Pigs), and there were surely times when Presidents ignored or twisted the CIA's intelligence to political ends (witness the current misadventure in Iraq), but underneath it all, there was at least SOME small bit of competence at work in the agency; there were people there who at least knew how to gather useful intelligence. Like the old quote about the CIA goes, their failures are all public, their successes are all secret.

      OK, so maybe I'm not right ALL the time.

      Turns out, the CIA is in fact a Mongolian clusterfuck of staggering, breathtaking proportions. And they always have been, all the way back to their founding in 1947 (and even the OSS, the agency's WWII precursor, wasn't quite as swift as they're made out to be on The History Channel). If the guy who coined the term "epic fail" had read this book, he wouldn't have bothered, there is no point in describing the ocean with teaspoon-sized words. As far as I can tell, they have had NO significant successes at all. Ever.

      From the very start, they were constructed for failure. The main idea in founding the CIA was "to prevent another Pearl Harbor" by keeping a close eye on other nations and to distill those observations into a keen understanding of what those nations were actually up to. That notion (or at least, the actual practice of it) was pretty much tossed in the dumpster the day the doors opened. Instead, they jumped on the anti-Commie bandwagon like the rest of the government, and there they stayed until chunks of the Berlin Wall actually started falling on their heads some 30 years later. The black-or-white thinking that so characterizes the neocons of today was the CIA's one and only mode of thought. The rules that set the entire tone for the CIA were simple:

      -There is ONE enemy in the world: the Commies.
      -The Commies want to destroy us.
      -If you're not with us, you're against us, and hence a Commie.
      -The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      And that's it. No shades of gray, no questioning of those basic principles, no consideration of other possibilities (apparently, not even that the recently-defeated Axis powers might be a threat again). This thinking would blind the intelligence-gathering division almost until the 1990s.

      Then it got worse. Almost immediately, the veterans of Wild Bill Donovan's he-man OSS corps elbowed their way to the table and decreed that clandestine operations should be the REAL focus of the CIA. Screw this reading other people's mail stuff, we've got to go and blow shit up, shoot people and sabotage the spread of communism wherever it shows its head. From that day on, the intelligence-gathering division was relegated to a barely-tolerated afterthought.

      The major problem with this plan was that the CIA really sucked at it. No, I mean REALLY sucked...and I mean both the clandestine and the intelligence-gathering. From the start, the agency was run by smugger-than-thou Yalies and uppercrust preppies who felt they didn't need to actually KNOW about any of this stuff they were blowing up, it was Commie stuff, so it just needed blowing up. The willful ignorance and stupidity practiced by the CIA was just staggering.

      Over and over and over again, the book lays out details of CIA foreign stations where not a single officer there spoke the local language, knew anything about the history of the region, or ever made any effort to learn anything that was going on outside of what could be picked up over cocktails at the country club. The CIA guys in Laos who were arming and training Hmong tribesmen to fight the North Vietnamese didn't even know the name "Hmong." They called them by a term that the author says was somewhere between "barbarian" and "nigger." In the 70s-80s, the agency's TOP Soviet expert spoke not a single word of Russian. And he had never even set foot there. The way the CIA learned that the Berlin Wall was falling--and I'm NOT making this up--was when somebody at headquarters happened to tune into CNN.

      Over and over and over again, the book tells of CIA directors and top officers who were drunks, liars, con men. One CIA director was eventually committed to the happy home, and the guy who ran the counterintelligence division for years was widely regarded to be certifiable for most of his tenure.

      Over and over and over again, the author details clandestine operations that went horribly, disastrously wrong. Massive clusterfucks like the Bay of Pigs were far more the rule than the exception. For years, the CIA was supplying money and weapons to a Polish resistance group fighting the Soviets. The only problem was, it didn't exist. It had been wiped out years earlier by the KGB, and the whole operation was just a scam on the CIA run by the Soviets. They even donated some of the CIA's money to the Italian Communist Party as a final dig.

      One side aspect of the story is that any JFK conspiracy theories that claim the CIA planned the assassination have had a stake decisively hammered through them. If the CIA had planned the JFK assassination, the only result would have been that a goatherd in a small Congolese village would have become the village's head man when all seven other contenders for the job suddenly perished in a freak bobsled accident. And a baker in Skipros, Greece would have received a shipment of German anti-tank missiles in crates labeled in Linear B, and an envelope with 2 million Romanian Lei inside.

      And speaking of presidents and murder plots, the book suggests that the famous plot by Saddam to kill Papa Bush might not have been what it appeared. The "confession" of the plotters that they were working for Saddam was tortured out of them by the Kuwaitis, and the author notes that the alleged conspirators were really just a bunch of hash smugglers and other low-level criminal types.

      Meanwhile, over in the intelligence-gathering division (and of course, the two divisions did frequently overlap), things weren't going any better. Over and over and over again, we read of utter and complete failure to plant spies in Commie countries. Not a single one of the dozens and dozens of spies dropped into North Korea during the Korean war was ever heard from again. The same was true for just about every other spy dropped into every other country. In one case, after dozens of spies disappeared without a trace, it was discovered later that the clerk who typed up the orders for the insertion was working for the Commies, so the KGB was there to meet them when they hit the ground. Although the CIA managed to recruit a handful of low-level spies in the Soviet Union (one was a high school teacher, another a roofer), in the entire cold war, they only ever managed to recruit three--count em--THREE spies of any consequence. All were arrested and shot.

      When they did gather intelligence, it was ludicrously wrong FAR more often than it was right. Indeed, I don't think the book details a single case where the CIA got its intelligence right on a major issue. In 1961, they reported that the Soviets had 500 nukes pointed at the US. They were just a tad high. 496 high, to be precise. The Soviets had a grand total of FOUR nukes pointed at us. Nonetheless, that report set of a frenzy of weapons building that brought us to the brink of nuclear war and economic collapse. Over and over again, the book tells of the CIA reporting that <X> will never do <Y>. And then two days later, <X> doing <Y> was on the front page of the daily paper. They confidently predicted the Russians wouldn't have a nuke for years just about 2 weeks before the Russians tested their first one. They said that Saddam was just bluffing when he massed tens of thousands of troops on the Kuwaiti border.

      The few times they did score on a piece of correct intelligence, they got it from the spy agencies of other countries. In a 1956 speech to the Congress of the Communist Party, Khruschchev delivered a scathing denunciation of Stalin. The CIA had to get a copy of the speech from the Israeli secret service.

      Even the things that the CIA defined as "successes" were questionable at best, particularly in the long run. What the CIA did have a fair record at was overthrowing democratically-elected governments and replacing them with right-wing despots. When the democratically-elected PM of Iran suggested to the Brits and Americans that maybe Iran should get a little more of all that oil money that they were taking out of his country, they laughed and told him to STFU/GBTW. So he suggested that maybe he might just nationalize the oil fields. WELL, that's your actual commie talk, of course, so the CIA overthrew him and put a puppet Shah in his place...and then trained and outfitted a brutal secret police to keep the sheeple in line. That is the chief reason why a lot of Iranians hate our guts today. The CIA considered their arming and training of Afghan Muslim fanatics to kill Russians to be a *spectacular* success...and I think we all know how that turned out in the third act.

      That was the norm for the CIA. That "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing led them into bed with every kind of lying, thieving, murdering drunken thug in the sewer, just as long as they were anti-Commie.The CIA cheerfully funded openly unrepentant Nazis just after the end of WWII, and actually went downhill from there. I can't think of any case where the CIA helped overthrow a government and then replaced it with a fair, lawful one.

      And the thing is, they weren't even any good at overthrowing governments, they were just lucky. It wasn't a case of skillful psychological warfare and precisely-timed black ops, they basically just paid goons to start shooting people in the streets. At least one operation, an attempted coup in Indonesia, ended with the US military shooting at the CIA's own hired thugs.

      Now, even though no President in the CIA's history comes off looking very good in this book, it wasn't as if nobody noticed how bad the CIA's record was. Over and over and over again, blue-ribbon panels, inspectors general, and even internal CIA reviewers were commissioned to report on the effectiveness of the agency, and like the reports were Xeroxed, they all reached the same conclusion: the CIA is seriously, SERIOUSLY broken, and probably the best thing we could do is just torch the place. These reports were all either just buried, or tut-tutted over in the press for a couple weeks, and then everything returned to incompetence as usual.

      The punchline to all this is it really appears now that the Commies just weren't that much of a threat, even when Stalin was in power. Khruschchev himself wrote that the concept of an all-out war with the west terrified Stalin, and then later Khruschchev was making tentative peace feelers with the US when the CIA sent "just one more" U2 flight into Russian airspace, and that slammed the door for years. Sure, the Soviets were out to flatter, bribe, steal, or bully influence in countries all around the world that had oil, minerals, or a strategic location. Just as we were. Just as every other world power has done in history. I think that a great deal of the fault for the cold war has to be laid at the CIA's feet.

      And since "the only enemy in the world" up and vanished, the rudderless ship of the CIA has been even more adrift. After the 9/11 attacks, the command structure of the agency was changed (think re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic), and the former position of CIA director was more-or-less replaced by the position of Director of National Intelligence. The last actual CIA director was Porter Goss, and his main contribution to the fun was to systematically sack everybody in the agency who disagreed with Dubya's policies. That got rid of the last people who might actually know something useful. After that, some 50% of the employees were so new as to be classified as "trainees." And then it got worse. Today, a number of private intelligence agencies have sprung up like weeds, and they all pay much better than the CIA. So the current career track there is to join the CIA, get the training, put in five years or so, quit, join Spooks R Us for double the pay...and then show up for work the next day at the CIA wearing a contractor badge instead of an employee badge.

      Reading this book was a gut-wrenching, eye-opening experience. For the first couple hundred pages, I was outraged. Then, it just kept coming, it didn't let up, and I was eventually left with just a numb shock, and even a kind of disgust at being an American. The book really gives you a better perspective of what's been going on in the world for the last 60 years, and why we are where we are and why the people who hate us came to that opinion. The book has just been released in paperback, and it should be required reading in high school.

      My opinion now (and I mean this with almost no sarcasm) is that one of the greatest threats--perhaps THE greatest threat--to America since 1947 has in fact been the CIA. They have spent uncounted billions of dollars, caused uncounted thousands, hundreds of thousands, of deaths, put America in bed with a staggeringly long list of murderers, liars, goons, rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, ...well, lots of bad guys. And through all that, they failed to predict even a SINGLE event of significance to the US (there have been a couple of cases where they got something right, but nobody listened because they were usually wrong). Instead, they tarnished our reputation around the world, and led us to the brink of both nuclear and conventional war too many times to comfortably recount. And so far, every single President has gotten disgusted with them, decided they weren't worth the powder and shot to put them down, and then increased their budget and left them as a mess for the next President to clean up. But the CIA HAS demonstrated a cheerful willingness to spy on Americans (they've been doing it at least since the 60s), and to do any vile thing they're called upon to do. So with the current neocon push for an Imperial President and a Big Brother state, they are in a perfect position to step up and become our very own KGB or Gestapo...but minus the competence.

      [Previously at this blog on Weiner's book:
      "Abolish the CIA"
      "A Brief History of the CIA: 1945-1953 (Truman)"
      "A Brief History of the CIA: 1953-1961 (Eisenhower)"
      "The CIA in Venezuela in 2002"
      Also Rottin' in Denmark has a review of the Weiner book similar in some respects to Dave's.]

      Monday, May 19, 2008

      The Secret lawsuits

      The director of "The Secret" video, Drew Heriot, is suing its author, Rhonda Byrne, for $150 million. Heriot claims he co-authored the screenplay and the book and is thus owed half of what the book and DVD have earned.

      "The Secret" advocates the "law of attraction," which claims that everybody always gets what they deserve because what you think about comes to you. Apparently Heriot and Byrne have been thinking a lot about giving money to lawyers.

      Byrne previously settled another legal case with "holistic healer" Vanessa Bonnette in Australia, and is facing two other lawsuits in the United States.

      Previous critiques of the utter nonsense that is "The Secret" may be found here. The fact that this claptrap has made so much money is a poor reflection on the gullibility and idiocy of far too many people on this planet.