03/13/12

NASA latest target of creationist harridans


CreationismA former NASA computer technician has filed an wrongful dismissal suit against his former employer, alleging he was, “discriminated against because he engaged his co-workers in conversations about intelligent design.” Engaged is a mild word. From what I’ve read in more balanced reports, he proselytized and his co-workers complained. The trial began Monday (documents here).

David Coppedge admitted he, “…handed out (religious) DVDs on the idea while at work.” But that’s not all. According to this AP story, Coppedge was also involved in political campaigning at work:

Coppedge’s attorney, William Becker, contends his client was singled out by his bosses because they perceived his belief in intelligent design to be religious. Coppedge had a reputation around JPL as an evangelical Christian, and interactions with co-workers led some to label him as a Christian conservative, Becker said.
In the lawsuit, Coppedge says he believes other things also led to his demotion, including his support for a state ballot measure that sought to define marriage as limited to heterosexual couples and his request to rename the annual holiday party a Christmas party.

Coppedge runs an apologist creationist website that tries to discredit evolutionary and biological science and new discoveries with pseudo-scientific jargon.

The Huffington Post story noted,

While the case has attracted interest because of the controversial nature of intelligent design, it is at its heart a straightforward discrimination case, said Eugene Volokh, a professor of First Amendment law at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.

“Intelligent” design is not controversial unless you try to promote it in your workplace to skeptical coworkers. Creationist advocates get shirty that your efforts get you dismissed. The story continues:

“The question is whether the plaintiff was fired simply because he was wasting people’s time and bothering them in ways that would have led him to being fired regardless of whether it was about religion or whether he was treated worse based on the religiosity of his beliefs,” said Volokh. “If he can show that, then he’s got a good case.”

The CBC story quoted John West, associate director of the inappropriately-named, right-wing anti-science “Centre for Science and Culture” at the creationist defence group, the “Discovery Institute” (aka The Discoveroids*)

“It’s part of a pattern. There is basically a war on anyone who dissents from Darwin and we’ve seen that for several years. This is free speech, freedom of conscience 101.”

The US Constitution protects free speech from government interference. It doesn’t protect anyone’s right to disrupt a workplace. There is no constitutional right to promote creationism in the workplace.

No, it isn’t free speech or conscience. It’s a typical creationist assault on science through a wedge issue. West is using typical pro-creationist/anti-science spin doctoring. In this quote, he tries to reposition the issue from one of a workplace problem to one of constitutional freedom and faith. It is neither. It’s not a war on dissent**. It’s about whether Coppedge was engaged in workplace harassment. The only “war” going on is the constant creationist assault on critical thinking.

Would these people defend someone who actively promoted astrology at JPL? Or promoted Communism? Or is protecting “free speech” limited to defending the alleged right to spout creationist folderol?

Coppedge’s attorney, William Becker, says his client was singled out by his bosses because they perceived his belief in intelligent design to be religious. Coppedge had a reputation around JPL as an evangelical Christian and other interactions with co-workers led some to label him as a Christian conservative, Becker said.
In the lawsuit, Coppedge says he believes other things also led to his demotion, including his support for a state ballot measure that sought to define marriage as limited to heterosexual couples and his request to rename the annual holiday party a “Christmas party.”

Belief in “intelligent” design IS religious. Only religious fundamentalists or biblical literalists believe in creationism. But belief alone won’t get you fired.

Live Science notes:

According to Coppedge’s complaint first filed with the courts in April 2010, JPL supervisors reprimanded Coppedge for handing out intelligent design DVDs to coworkers and discussing his beliefs about intelligent design with them. Coppedge alleges that JPL stifled his right to free speech and created a hostile work environment, demoting him from his “team lead” position in 2009. Coppedge lost his job last year.
“Plaintiff contends that, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct and actions, he has been prejudiced and harmed as the result of Defendants’ actions suppressing and constraining protected speech in the workplace on account of viewpoint, content and religion,” reads Coppedge’s complaint filed at the Los Angeles Superior Court in 2010. The complaint has since been updated to include Coppedge’s termination.
According to JPL, it was not Coppedge’s beliefs, but his conflicts with colleagues that led to his demotion. The lab also holds that Coppedge’s firing was the result of planned budget cuts, not his intelligent design beliefs.

Strikes me that handing out religious DVDs or campaigning for a homophobic state proposition in any workplace during work hours are inappropriate acts. The US Constitution protects free speech from government interference. It doesn’t protect anyone’s right to disrupt a workplace. There is no constitutional right to promote creationism in the workplace.

Far more frightening is the rest of the story about the dumbing down of America:

According to the Gallup polling organization, as of 2010, 38 percent of Americans believed that humans evolved with God’s guidance, a position roughly congruous with intelligent design. Forty percent said they believed that God created humans in their present form, while 16 percent said they believed that humans evolved without God’s hand.
The Pew Research Center… in 2005… found that about 58 percent of Americans said the biblical account of creation was definitely or probably true, but the same percentage also said the same of evolution. In August 2005, a Gallup poll found that only 52 percent of Americans knew what the term “intelligent design” meant.
One study published in January found that people’s acceptance of evolution depends on their gut feeling rather than a careful examination of the evidence.
Nonetheless, evolution, creationism and intelligent design remain hot political topics. Legislators in several states introduced legislation this year that would limit the teaching of evolution or promote instruction in creationism.

Those figures are truly frightening and bode ill for science and critical thinking. Forty percent believe in creationism, while only 16% believe humans evolved without supernatural intervention. That’s sad. So very, very sad.

Creationism is fraudulent pseudoscience***. Claptrap. Codswallop. “Intelligent” Design (ID) is simply lipstick on the creationist pig. It isn’t science any more than “faith healing” is medicine.

The Sensuous Curmudgeon has been following the trial and commenting on the pieces creationist groups have been posting on their websites in their attempt to recast the case as a battle over faith rather than a workplace discipline issue. His archive of posts is here.

One example of the fundamentalist spin is this screed from an uber-right site:

In a developing case indicative of the growing war on religion and in particular Christianity, opening statements are expected Monday in a legal case involving the wrongful termination of a NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory employee…
Anyone who has ever been a Christian in a secular workplace characterized by a decidedly anti-religious environment knows all too well that this kind of “labeling” and discrimination is common place. Though JPL will advance all kinds of evidence to defend its demotion and ultimate firing of Coppedge, most unbiased Americans can read between the lines and see that what really went on here was a coordinated and widespread effort to get rid of that ignorant Christian trouble-maker. Heaven forbid somebody in NASA actually believe in God or Intelligent Design – that is pure unadulterated blasphemy to today’s breed of scientists!

Typical creationist/fundamentalist hookum. Free speech is a canard in this trial.

People are allowed to believe any tomfoolery they want, even creationism, the apex of tomfoolery, up there with with astrology, phrenology, crystal therapy and alien abductions. All of which have many, many followers. But believers can’t annoy co-workers with their beliefs and disrupt the workplace. And that’s what NASA alleges Coppedge did.
~~~~~

* My favourite quotes from the Discoveroids’ website: “The Spanish Inquisition was about testing the sincerity of people’s Christianity.” “Darwinism is the tribal religion of the modern elites, presided over by The New York Times, NPR/PBS and even The Wall Street Journal.” “Ann Coulter is so funny that people fail to notice the well read public intellectual behind the laughing smile and endless blonde tresses.” (Ann Coulter is the poster girl of the uber-right wingnut caucus who personifies the term ‘shrill harridan’). Guffaws all around.
** Many scientists have challenged Darwin’s original ideas. Evolutionary theory has evolved in its own way from Darwin’s day. That’s natural (like evolution). Darwin didn’t know about genetics, DNA, viruses, radiation and other things that affect development and mutation. So of course scientists have had to refine and adapt the original theory in the light of new information. Science grows with knowledge, unlike creationism which stopped thinking about things 4,000 years ago when the Genesis mythology was first penned. Today’s evolutionary biology is far more complex and fuller than what Darwin proposed. But that doesn’t mean Darwin was wrong, any more than Newton or Galileo are wrong simply because we’ve learned new things since either.
*** Creationism is the belief that the first creation myth in the Book of Genesis is fact, not primitive mythology. Curiously, the different and contradictory second creation myth (2:4-2:25) gets ignored.

03/11/12

That’s not mass, it’s area. Poor science means bad reporting.



It will come from space, be as massive as half a football field, have the explosive power to decimate hundreds of square miles of land and will hurtle perilously close to Earth.

Just some artist's impression of a burning rockI cringed when I read this paragraph in a QMI story published in the London Free Press recently, titled “Rock of Ages: Killer Asteroid Likely to Pass in 2013.” So many mistakes in so few words. But it might be a great start for a Roger Corman B-flick script.

Of course, “it” will come from space: “it” is an asteroid. Asteroids, says Wikipedia, are, “…a class of small Solar System bodies in orbit around the Sun.” So it’s pretty obvious an asteroid can’t come from your basement, from the North Pole or from Ottawa.

“As massive as half a football field,” the writer declares. How massive is a football field? It isn’t massive at all. It has area, which is a measurement of its size in two dimensions, not mass. Mass, as Wikipedia says, has nothing to do with size: “In everyday usage, mass is often referred to as weight… In scientific use, however, the term weight refers to a different, yet related, property of matter. Weight is the gravitational force acting on a given body.”

Let’s get more technical, so we can be exact in our definition of mass: “…inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object’s resistance to the change of its speed.” An asteroid moving at an estimated 8.2 km/second certainly has inertial mass.

So many mistakes in so few words. But it might be a great start for a Roger Corman B-flick script.

Massive is an adjective that refers to mass, of course. So tell me, Terry Davidson, how you can measure the mass of a football field? What does a football field weigh? And is that an America, Canadian or Australian football field – because they are different sizes. The asteroid in question is estimated to be about 46m (150 feet) wide. But that doesn’t say anything about its mass which is also related to its density and speed.

Explosive power? Not really. Asteroids are not explosive, although impacts create explosions.

An explosion happens when the kinetic energy of the asteroid is converted to other forms of energy on impact. Until that moment, an asteroid does not have “explosive power,” just kinetic energy. Sometimes asteroids explode in the atmosphere as this one did over Indonesia, in 2009. But that’s a combination of rapid heat expansion, pressure and kinetic energy, not because the asteroid was “explosive.”

Decimate hundreds of square miles? Does the writer mean it will destroy every tenth square mile? The origin of decimate is Latin, and refers to a practice in the Roman Army of killing every tenth soldier as a form of punishment. Common usage means to “kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of (something),” and “drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something).” Decimate does not mean destroy everything.

It is called 2012-DA14, an asteroid that NASA scientists have been watching closely in anticipation of Feb. 15, 2013, when the mammoth piece of solid space rock will soar past the Earth a mere 24,000 kms from the planet’s surface. It will be passing even lower than the altitude at which many man-made satellites orbit.

Man-made. Bit of an anachronism, that term. I’m pretty sure there were also women working on some of those parts. I would have preferred “artificial” as a neutral adjective over the sexist “man-made.”

Mammoth? Compared to what? To a football field? It’s certainly bigger than the house Dorothy dropped on the Wicked Witch of the West, but compared to Ceres or Vesta? At 45-46m (150 feet), on the cosmic scale, it’s a pebble. It’s a fraction of the size of Asteroid 2005 YU55, which will whiz by Earth on November 8, about 319,000 kms away.

In fact 2012-DA14 is eerily similar to an asteroid that destroyed hundreds of square miles of forest in remote Siberia a little over a century ago.

In fact”? Since nothing has ever been found of the Tunguska meteorite, and certainly no sample has ever been taken of 2012-DA14, how can they be compared? Where are the “facts” about either? Many scientists believe the Tunguska event was caused by a chunk of comet, or even a micro black hole, not an asteroid. No one even knows the size of the rock that caused Tunguska, although there are educated guesses. We can only guess at any possible similarities; not state facts.

Eerily? What’s eerie about similarities between pieces of material? Eerily means, “…inspiring inexplicable fear, dread, or uneasiness; strange and frightening; suggestive of the supernatural; mysterious.” What is supernatural about a natural piece of space rock? Why would some physical similarity – size is the only property that can be estimated for both – instill dread or fear? Is it a haunted asteroid? Being “haunted” requires imaginary creatures called ghosts, not science.

The rock that exploded over Siberia, did so at an estimated 5–10 kilometres (3–6 mi) above the Earth’s surface, and likely on an impact trajectory. Asteroid 2012-DA14 will pass us by at 2,400 to 4,800 times that distance, and will not be aimed at the planet’s surface. These two are as “eerily similar” as the distance from my home to my town hall – about a mile – is similar to the distance from my home to Vancouver (about 3,500 miles).

Killer Asteroid, the headline screams! Is it time to panic? Not in 2013. Although the headline suggests it’s “likely” to pass Earth in 2013, Asteroid 2012-DA14 has zero percent chance of hitting the planet. Zero. Zilch. It’s not likely to pass us: it WILL pass us by. There’s a huge difference between likely and won’t.

You actually get some real science at the tail end of the story, where the estimated speed, size and mass of the asteroid is indicated. That’s where it says risk to hit: 0. By which I assume that means zero percent or zero chances in whatever. Not likely: none. The real data isn’t from the story writer, however, but from Don Yeomans of NASA’s Near-Earth Objects Program.

Asteroid 2012-DA14?s next closest pass, in 2040, has a 1 in 80,000 chance of striking Earth. That’s lower odds than the chance of getting rich on the Antiques Road Show (1:60,000)! Frankly, probability suggests you’re more likely to win the lottery than to be hit by any meteorite.

2040 is the year the asteroid is “likely to pass” not 2013. It’s very, very, very likely to pass in 2040, with about 12 chances in a million to hit us. Until then, I won’t worry about it. But I will continue to worry about bad science in reporting.

~~~~~~
Davidson’s story at least has some science buried in the hyperbole. There are many on the Internet that are a LOT worse, although few are written by reporters and are mostly the work of oddballs. “Deadly asteroid 2012 DA14 bounds towards Earth out of the blue” reads one headline, admittedly from a site that has all sorts of claptrap, from aliens to UFOs to demons and various conspiracy theories. I’m happy that the fringe lunatics have a place to play online, but the writer is incorrect in saying, “NASA confirms the 60-meter (197-feet) asteroid, spotted by Spanish stargazers in February, has a good chance of colliding with Earth in eleven months.” It has NO chance. None.

03/10/12

That squiggle cost taxpayers HOW much?


I read in the latest edition of the Collingwood Connection that: “Regional Tourist Organization 7 (is) now Bruce Grey Simcoe.” Were you even aware of Regional Tourist Organization 7 before that story? According to the Connection,

The organization announced its new brand and logo on Thursday at the Bear Estate in Collingwood. Bruce Grey Simcoe is one of 13 regional tourism organizations across the province.
Executive director Jeffery Schmidt said the group has been doing research and marketing over the past year in preparation for this announcement, as well as future initiatives.
He said creating the brand cost about $80,000 but the research over the past year has cost about $1.5 million.

Bruce Grey Simcoe and its squiggleMore than $1.5 million to change its name and produce a squiggle (“swoosh”) for a logo? It cost $80,000 to rename the organization from the bland, Borg-like “Regional Tourist Organization 7″ (RTO 7 to its friends, and the name the website still bears but it links to brucegreysimcoe.com/) to “Bruce Grey Simcoe.” $80,000 for that. And they forgot the commas, too. Now it reads like some English writer’s name. Eric Arthur Blair. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. Mary Ann Evans. Bruce Grey Simcoe. Maybe commas would have cost too much money, so they eschewed correct punctuation to save taxpayers money.

Man, I’m in the wrong industry. Five minutes of shallow cogitation could produce that name. Let’s see… who does he organization service? Hmm. The website says, “Tourism Region 7 consists of Bruce County, Grey County and Simcoe County (see map).” The counties of Bruce, Grey and Simcoe. Wait a second, I have an idea, let’s call it…

Come on. That cost $80,00? I would have thrown in the commas for free, for $80,000.

Actually it seems to have cost taxpayers $1,580,000, because it took $1.5 million in “research and marketing in preparation for this announcement, as well as future initiatives.” What research? Doesn’t say. No pollster called me to ask my opinion of the new name, or whether three independent, proper names should be strung together without the right punctuation.

RTO7 is an independent, not-for-profit organization whose mission is to work collaboratively with tourism partners and stakeholders to enrich Region 7’s diverse tourism experiences and to sustain and grow visitation, investment and tourism receipts.

What exactly are “tourism receipts?” If a visitor shops at Wal Mart, is that a tourism receipt? How are they grown (do they need water and fertilizer)?

RTOs are funded by the province – which means by you, the taxpayer. And maybe you’ll pay twice: your local municipality may be asked to shell out money to belong to RTO 7. “It is up to each Regional Tourism Organization to determine if membership fees will be implemented,” says the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. I await their request to council.

Benefit of these expenditures to you, the taxpayer? Aside from keeping graphic design, research and marketing firms busy, that is? Benefit of another layer of bureaucracy? Sorry, I haven’t found any, but I’ll keep searching.

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport website says,

Ontario is paving the way for a stronger, more competitive tourism industry. The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport is supporting Ontario’s tourism partners as they develop Regional Tourism Organizations in the province’s 13 new tourism regions. Each Regional Tourism Organization is independent, industry-led and not-for-profit. Each will be responsible for building and supporting competitive and sustainable tourism regions. And each will help attract more visitors, generate more economic activity, and create more jobs across the province.

How these organizations will pave the way for anything, let alone develop or build tourism, is not stated. Nor does it state how the MTCS supports its “tourism partners.” But the FAQ says:

Regional Tourism Organizations are independent, industry-led, not-for-profit organizations responsible for working with tourism partners to enhance and grow each region’s tourism products and marketing activities. The regional leadership and coordination they provide will help build and support competitive and sustainable tourism regions. As a result, each region will be better equipped to attract more visitors, generate more economic activity and create more jobs across the province.

Again, more bluster-speak, long on touchy-feely but short on details. How will they lead? Or build? It does say that, “Regional Tourism Organizations may pursue regional research for planning, coordination and performance measurement.” Which I suppose justifies spending $1.5 million to research a squiggle and three words. Okay, to be fair: six words if you count the tag line, “Always in Season.” That’s how much a word? No wonder they couldn’t afford the commas!

The new BGS/RTO 7 logo, says the Connection,

…features the names of the three counties with a swoosh above in blue, green, yellow and orange. The tag line is, Always in Season, representing the fact the region is a four-season destination.

The EB article called it a, “..swoosh that can either represent the topography changes between Lake Huron and Lake Simcoe, or the outline of the escarpment — with colours representing the water, the fall season, and the spectacular sunsets seen over Georgian Bay.”

I’m not a graphic artist, so perhaps my eye fails to see the beauty of what looks to me like a squiggle from a paint brush that wasn’t fully cleaned. Maybe I lack the eye to recognize metaphor. But I do recognize another layer being piled onto the tourism layer cake.

The official media release notes about the branding exercise,

“The goal of the process was to determine a name and identity for the region that demonstrates its uniqueness and tells consumers where we are, both geographically and spiritually,” said Bill Sullivan, the organization’s Director of Marketing. “We wanted to convey the essence of our authentic communities, natural environments and breadth of product, and the fact that visitors can expect different experiences each and every time they visit.”

Spiritually? Come on… we’re not the Vatican or Jerusalem, catering to religious tourists. I don’t think there’s even a single face of Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich to be found in any of the three counties.

I could already tell you where we are geographically by looking at my GPS. Authentic? Yep, it’s an authentic county named Simcoe. Glad we got that sorted out (unless they mean a county authentically named Simcoe, in which case I get all rhetorical). Look, there’s an authentic county named Grey. And there’s an authentic squiggle… I mean, swoosh.

I’m not a graphic artist, so perhaps my eye fails to see the beauty of what looks to me like a squiggle from a paint brush that wasn’t fully cleaned. Maybe I lack the eye to recognize metaphor.

According to the Enterprise Bulletin, the RTO 7 held, “…town hall information sessions in Owen Sound, Collingwood and Barrie this week where the new consumer brand will be unveiled. Members of the public are invited to see how the brand will be rolled out in the coming months.”

Town hall sessions at what expense and why? To promote something to local consumers who ALREADY live in the area the RTO is supposed to be promoting? Sessions to inform people of what? A squiggle and a tag line? I assume tourism and hospitality businesses already know about these RTOs. Do you think the local consumer really cares, or even if he/she has ever heard of the organization? Who gets paid for these events, who claims mileage and expenses for these sessions?

Makes me wonder how much more this roll-out will cost taxpayers. The EB coverage gave us some idea that it might prove expensive:

RTO7 will be undertaking a ‘brand’ launch beginning in mid-March, complete with an in-region promotion contest encouraging local residents to submit photos and stories and “showcase their favourite places and experiences, and what makes (the region) such a great place to live and play,” said Schmidt.

Neither newspaper had anything in the way of substance about what the RTO will actually do, just that it was self-promoting its $1.58 million branding. And what happens with existing tourism associations like the GTTA?

The EB article continues:

“What we are unveiling at the session is a brand name, like a destination name for the area, as well as a logo and talking about how that will be introduced or rolled out through a promotion or marketing campaign,” said Jeff Schmidt, executive director of RTO 7, based in Thornbury.

“It’s like a consumer brand where people will be able to say, ‘Oh yeah, I know where that is.’”

Yeah. I can see people in Toronto talking over breakfast about what a good time they had on their weekend getaway to “Brucegreysimcoe.” Imagine all 13 RTOs marketing to the same Toronto consumers, too. After all, who else will they target?

For $1.58 million, I could send every consumer in the province a road map of Ontario with the three counties marked with circles, and probably save taxpayers $1 million. Imagine if all 13 of these groups follow RTO 7 and spend that much on tag lines and squiggles? That would cost taxpayers more than $20 million. And for what? Words and squiggles. Sorry: swooshes. That would come from the $65 million of tax dollars the province has budgeted as handouts support for RTOs. Imagine what local hospitals could do with that, instead. Probably waste it on MRI scanners or some other piece of medical hardware.

Hey, Don Drummond, I think you missed a big sinkhole in spending right here. The MTCS FAQ says,RTOS must “…sign a transfer payment agreement that holds them accountable to the Province for expenditure of taxpayer dollars and for growing tourism in the region.” I wonder if spending $1.58 million for “branding” and squiggles is considered “accountable.”

03/8/12

Sorry the world didn’t end for you….


Christian Science MonitorHoward Camping is one sorry person. Really. This week he apologized – again – for making an incorrect “doomsday” prediction last year that had hundreds, maybe thousands, of his co-religious wingnuts eagerly selling all their belongings in anticipation of the end of the world as we know it (TEOTWAWKI, October 21).

Oops. World didn’t end, but then we knew it wouldn’t, didn’t we? Just like it won’t end this December simply because the Mayans ran out of room on their stone calendar for another long cycle.

I wrote about Camping and his wacky “Rapture” predictions back in May, 2011. Today I read about his apology for miscalculating the end of the world on the Huffington Post and Washington Post.

Camping actually made his first apology in May, 2011, when the “Rapture” he predicted failed to happen. Then he made another apology last October when the world didn’t end. Like I said earlier, he’s a sorry guy.

Well, he said he was wrong, but not everyone thought they were apologies. I agree: they read like excuses to me.

Then Harold apologized (sort of) again, in November, when he retired from “Family” Radio. He wrote: “It seems embarrassing for Family Radio. But God was in charge of everything. We came to that conclusion after quite careful study of the Bible. He allowed everything to happen the way it did without correction. He could have stopped everything if He had wanted to.” So it was God’s fault, not Harold’s that he got the date wrong.

This week Camping posted a new letter of apology on his company’s website. That’s right: his company. Camping is the founder of “Family” Radio, a fundamentalist Christian radio network. Never lose site of the fact like televangelists, Camping’s operation is about business first, and faith second. The network spent millions of dollars in 2011 advertising the alleged “Rapture.” Big bucks: gotta come from somewhere.

“Family” Radio isn’t my personal cup of tea: it offers an unrelenting program of Bible reading and study, with an emphasis on Camping’s own particular (and peculiar) slant on the text (its literal truth as he interprets it). Given his track record on end-of-the-world predictions (he made an earlier one for 1994), his interpretations strike me as pretty screwy and not conducive to anyone’s belief. Some of their stations alleviate the dreary droning with CCM (Contemporary Christian Music). Give me Bluesville any day of the week over CCM. Please.

In his recent letter, posted on the “Family” Radio site, Camping wrote:

The May 21 campaign was an astounding event if you think about its impact upon this world. There is no question that millions, if not billions of people heard for the first time the Bible’s warning that Jesus Christ will return. Huge portions of this world that had never read or seen a Bible heard the message the Christ Jesus is coming to rapture His people and destroy this natural world.

Well, the millennium-bug campaign was equally “astounding” in the same sense that for all the brouhaha, nothing happened with either. Dates came, dates went, computers didn’t crash, Jesus didn’t return. Camping seems to think his failed prediction woke people up to his vision of Rapture and apocalypse. I doubt it: it was grist for many, many comedy routines and much smirking palaver, but aside from the general hilarity, I doubt it convinced anyone. In fact, it probably cost Camping a lot of followers. Especially those who woke up October 22, homeless, jobless, friendless, penniless, rapture-less and still very much on planet earth.

At least he didn’t convince them to drink the Kool-Aid… although there were documented suicides and attempted suicides as a result of his predictions. Some people are that gullible.

Camping’s letter may seem an abjectly humble apology to some, but to me it sounds a trifle hollow; rather defensive or even a bit prideful:

…we humbly acknowledge we were wrong about the timing; yet though we were wrong God is still using the May 21 warning in a very mighty way. In the months following May 21 the Bible has, in some ways, come out from under the shadows and is now being discussed by all kinds of people who never before paid any attention to the Bible. We learn about this, for example, by the recent National Geographic articles concerning the King James Bible and the Apostles. Reading about and even discussing about the Bible can never be a bad thing, even if the Bible’s authenticity is questioned or ridiculed. The world’s attention has been called to the Bible…. Yet this incorrect and sinful statement allowed God to get the attention of a great many people who otherwise would not have paid attention. Even as God used sinful Balaam to accomplish His purposes, so He used our sin to accomplish His purpose of making the whole world acquainted with the Bible. However, even so, that does not excuse us. We tremble before God as we humbly ask Him for forgiveness for making that sinful statement. We are so thankful that God is so loving that He will forgive even this sin.

For all his mea-culpa commentary, Harold doesn’t apologize to all those people who gave up everything to become his camp(ing) followers and ended up with nothing but the ringing laughter of their former friends and co-workers to live on. I suppose we’ll still have to wait for him to apologize fully. Probably until the “Rapture” finally does arrive… or at least until the UFOs land (pick your fantasy scenario)…

03/7/12

Grim outlook for Canadian manufacturing


Abandoned Arrow Shirt factory, OntarioThe outlook for Canadian manufacturing, warns the CIBC, will remain grim as long as a strong dollar keeps labour costs high, “deepening the hollowing out of the industrial heartland and boosting regional income inequality in the years ahead,” says the Huffington Post.

The Canadian loonie looks good for shoppers who buy consumer and retail goods made outside Canada. Our import prices are actually 10% lower than they were a decade ago. Back in 2002, when the loonie was $0.62CAD to the $USD, our labour costs were lower, so it made Canada a good place in to make products. Now we’re not: we’re too expensive. Our labour costs are now 20-25% higher than those in the USA (see graph, below).

The factories have moved elsewhere and they’re not coming back any time in the foreseeable future. So you have to ask which is the greater advantage for Canadians: being able to buy cheaper goods from China or having good-paying jobs so you can afford better products?

Canadian labour costs risingThe CIBC report notes that, “Canada is no longer a cost-effective location for a host of non-resource-related manufacturing activities. Initially, shutdowns were seen in sectors like apparel and furniture that had earlier hung on in part due to an undervalued exchange rate. More recently, Canada has lagged in attracting or retaining facilities for autos and parts, rail cars, steel mills, and other goods where the competition is now more weighted to US producers… barring a big correction in the currency, or a sharp shift in relative wages, factory growth will subsequently stall.”

Ontario has been hardest hit, the report continues. “Real GDP growth in that province has now trailed the rest of the country for nine straight years—underperformance that has coincided with C$ appreciation. Had Ontario kept pace with the rest of the country, its economy would be almost 10% larger than it is today, making it much easier for the government to dig itself out of deficit.”

Only last month, the HuffPost reported that Canada lost industrial plants at twice the pace of the United States in 2011. The story adds,

Ontario led the decline in industrial plants, shedding 33 of them for a total of 7,853 jobs lost, the report stated. Quebec shed 23 plants, costing nearly 3,000 jobs. Western Canada and Atlantic Canada lost fewer than 2,000 industrial plant jobs each.
But the 14,000 jobs lost at shuttered plants don’t tell the full story. According to Statistics Canada, total employment in manufacturing declined by 50,000 from December, 2010, to December, 2011.
The IIR report suggests the pace of industrial job losses will be similar this year. There are already 76 plants scheduled to close in the next few months in the U.S., while Canada already has four closings scheduled, for job losses totaling 2,700.

At the bottom of the story is a slide show that documents the 10 hardest-hit manufacturing sectors, with the greatest job losses since before the 2008 recession.

Manufacturing isn’t the only sector hit. It’s the classic domino effect. Last month we saw a story on the grim outlook for the air cargo industry: “The immediate future doesn’t look at all rosy for the air cargo business.”

A report from TD Securities just after the recession began stated, “There’s no reason to expect anything good from the Canadian manufacturing shipments report on the 16th, with every single leading indicator that we know of in negative territory.” That picture has not improved significantly. A look at their forecasts for 2012 doesn’t show any improvement predicted. The once robust automobile sector remains flat: “…there is limited upside for new auto sales over the medium term. Perhaps the most difficult challenge facing automakers is the likely absence of any meaningful pentup demand in the Canadian market.” The housing market is at a crossroads: “Overall, we expect sales to record annual average declines of 2.4% and 3.5% in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Prices are poised to suffer a similar fate – annual average declines of 1.9% in 2012 and 3.6% in 2013.”

Furniture sales forecasts have been rewritten with lower expectations. Canadian retail sales in December – the best month of the year – were lower than expected (“There is also a direct connection between the retail shopping numbers and the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) line item in gross domestic product (GDP). PCE accounts for 55% of Canada’s national output.”)

Overall, the economic future does not look rosy for Canada, and especially not for Ontario. Coupled with the Drummond Report on Ontario’s troubled economy and its recommendations for significant cuts to government spending, it looks like we’re in for a few lean years. It’s something for Collingwood Council to keep in mind when working through its next few budgets.

03/4/12

Nope, this quote is not from Plato


Plato“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”

Seems like a wise thing to say. And I wish Plato had said it – it would have saved me a lot of time today. I spent many hours today putting together a quotation widget for this blog and trying to ascertain every quote I included came from a respectable, creditable source. Most were fairly easy to confirm, but others – like this one – just didn’t feel right for the attributed author.

This quote strikes me as far more modern than anything Plato ever wrote. It just see,ms to me like another touchy-feely, self-help-guru saying attributed to someone ancient to give it a patina of credibility.

Every single site that repeated that quotation of the several hundred I perused, not a single one included a source work for it. Many had sources for other Plato quotes, identifying the book from which the quotation was taken, but not this quote. That’s annoying. I spent at least an hour trying to find a proper source for this one.

Quotations attributed to the wrong author discredit both the poster and the quotation. It’s part of the general dumbing-down the Internet is doing to us all. But hundreds, even thousands of sites perpetuate this stupidity. It makes it very difficult to repeat anything we find online because few, if any, bother to track content backwards to confirm a source.

Some sites attributed (again without a source reference) it to Socrates (which points back to Plato, of course, since Socrates did not actually write anything and most of his recorded words are contained in Plato’s works).*

One site named the source as “Platone,” one as “Plate” and another as “Plata” (don’t these idiots ever use spell check?). Other sites attributed it to a real estate agent in la Jolla named “John Parker.” A poster named “kiersten11″ is noted as the source in one place. One site seems to attribute it to Abraham Lincoln (again unsourced). It’s like a dart board of dead people.

Many others just parroted it without attribution (probably a lot safer). It’s been used as an inspirational quote for both humanists and religious fundamentalists, evolutionists and creationists alike. It’s been bruited about in all sorts of simperingly saccharine posts about fear, love, fear of the dark and being one with the whatever nebulous oneness that inspires the poster.

But it isn’t from Plato. Another bloody stupid Internet meme is all it is. The equivalent of Internet chain letters. Sigh.

My bet is on it being by modern author Robin Sharma, for which I found several attributions of it from his book, The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari. It seems to run in parallel with his other quotes, too, much more than it reads like something Plato would have written.

Poor Robin Sharma if it really is his. How will he ever retrieve it from Plato?

~~~~~

* Update: I mis-spoke in my earlier version. Socrates is quoted by several classical authors, but of them only Plato was his actual student; Xenophon has been called a disciple but is from my reading more a contemporary or colleague. And Plato and Xenophon differ in a few p[laces what they claim Socrates said.
The rest of the authors use third-hand or more distant sources since they never knew or studied under Socrates. The Socratic problem is trying to determine what Socrates actually believed, since classical authors used him to voice their own sentiments and ideas.