Readings: Johnston Island

Johnston [Island] considered valuable for its rich deposits of guano, was claimed by both the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1856. Migratory fowl stop here by the hundreds of thousands, and in 1926 the island was designated a federal bird reserve. After the Second World War it was acquired by the U.S. Air Force, and "since then," I read, "the U.S military has converted this formerly idyllic atoll into one of he most toxic places in the Pacific." It was used during the 1950s and '60s for nuclear testing, and is still maintained as a standby test site; one end of the atoll remains radioactive. It was briefly considered as a test site for biological weapons, but this was precluded by the huge population of migratory birds, which, it was realized, might easily carry lethal infections back to the mainland. In 1971, Johnston became a depot for thousands of tons of mustard and nerve gases, which are periodically incinerated, releasing dioxin and furan into the air (perhaps the reason for the cinnamon haze I had seem from above). All personell on the island are required to have their gas masks ready.

From The Island of the Colorblind by Oliver Sacks
Quoted section from The Micronesia Handbook by David Stanley

Library Misread

I was perusing in the library the other day, when I saw a book that stopped me in my tracks.

"White Terrorism"

That title alone set off a chain reaction in my mind. The subject of white terrorism undermines the popular associations between race and terror (the popular belief that terrorists are brown people and brown people are terrorist). An understanding of the IRA in Ireland, the Red Brigade in Germany and Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber in the United States should help create a more general and accurate picture of the roots of terrorism.

So, I checked out the book and started reading. After getting to the section on religious terrorism in the Middle East, I realized that my initial assessment was incorrect. Turns out, the correct title is simply "Terrorism" and the author is Jonathan R. White. My problem was that I read the spine of the book as "White Terrorism: an introduction" but should be read as "White - Terrorism: an introduction."

South Paw

Are you an authoritarian? Do you have a right wing personality? There's only one way to find out. Place your views on the RWA scale! Here's how.

First, download this pdf: http://members.shaw.ca/perchaluk/drbob/chapter1.pdf

Then, open it up, hop down to the bottom of page 3 of the pdf (page 10 of the book), and follow the instructions. It's fun (well not really), it's easy, do it today.

So, turns out my RWA is 57 which means I'm a regular anarchist. I suggest everyone leaves their result in the comments section. I promise not to make fun of anyone.

It's important to note that in this context right-wing is not about being a conservative. Basically, it means that you're a tool. You obey traditional authorities be they right or left leaning.

Here is the rest of the book that the guy who uses this scale wrote.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

More Pointless Babble

Despite the urge not to, please compare the following two quotations:

1. All things whatsoever observe a mutual order; and this the form that maketh the universe like unto God. Herein the exalted creatures trace the impress of the Eternal Worth, which is the goal whereto was made the norm...
2. ...even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief...Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

The first quote is from Dante's "Divine Comedy" and represents the euphoric medieval view of the human relationship with the universe. This view posits that humans are the pillars on which the world rests. Also, we are in fact the image of the greatest aspect of the universe, namely the G-Dog. Third, human life has divine purpose.

The second quote from Bertrand Russell's "Mysticism and Logic" illustrates the ice cold heartless perspective of science on the place of life in the universe. Humans are accidents. Nothing has purpose. No grand conscious force even exists to be indifferent.

At this point, you're probably thinking hey, what the hell are you doing reading Dante and Russell. I answer, Ha! I'm not! I just paraphrased the introduction of EA Burtt's "Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science." You guys fall for that trick every time. Unless of course, you stopped reading a few paragraphs ago.

Is this thing on?

Click below for more fun universe facts courtesy of Tom the Dancing Bug.

The Monkey God Vs the Science Robot

How curious, after all, is the way in which we moderns think about our world! And it is all so novel, too. The cosmology underlying our mental processes is but three centuries old (a mere infant in the history of thought) and yet we cling to it with the same zeal with which a young father fondles his new-born baby. Like him, we are ignorant enough of its precise nature; like him, we nevertheless take it piously to be ours and allow it a subtly pervasive and unhindered control over our thinking.

Free nerd hats to all who are still with me. You can wear them to my special party where I'll be handing out tasty candy SUCKERS because I just tricked you into reading the opening paragraph of my fave new gem of a book, "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" by E A Burtt. The new born baby of which he so insightfully speaks is of course our good friend Science! (the tool by which some lovely lady quite recently pilfered my vision). The program of Burtt's work is to shed some light on the underlying beliefs and assumptions of scientific thought by comparing it to medieval thought. As an added benefit, he spices up the trip with some agile prose and euphemisms such as referring to a woman's lap as the "nether bifurcation." Hilarity ensues.

READ A BOOK!

Problems with Gender in the Military

Helen Benedict is writing a book on woman in the US military based on her interviews with 20 some female veterans. I've never been in the military myself but what these woman had to say is a bit disturbing. Benedict describes her findings in an article in Salon this week. Read it here. Here are some quotes:

"the Defense Department put up a Web site in 2005 designed to clarify that sexual assault is illegal "

"A 2003 survey of female veterans from Vietnam through the first Gulf War found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military."

"I was sexually assaulted by a superior officer when I was 19, but I didn't know where to turn, so I never reported it."

"you can't fit in if you make waves about it. You rat somebody out, you're screwed. You're gonna be a loner until they eventually push you out."

I'm just wondering how the military can protect Iraqi woman if it is having a hard time protecting female soldiers. Again, not having been in the military myself, or having done any of the research myself I can't say that this represents the majority of woman in the military but even a minority with this kind of experience is more than enough.

One particularly insidious aspect of how the culture of the military can deal with these situations is that woman are isolated and pressured if they report an incident while the perpetrators are better protected. There is no problem if it's not reported.

I would certainly doubt that this is a universal experience but unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence to support Benedict and her interviewees statements that it is a widespread problem. I believe the strongest source is a study by AG Sadler and others of female veterans. That is the study mentioned in the first quote about 30% of female veterans having experienced sexual assault. Not available online but citation is at the bottom of this post...

Second, the Department of Defense Task Force Report on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault from April 2004 does not paint a pretty picture either. You can download the pdf here. It is a fairly detailed document which supports, describes, and validates many of the findings of other studies. I also find few motivations for Department of Defense to exaggerate this problem as opposed to sweeping it under the rug of doubt. It is interesting to compare this Report on Care with the DoD's Sexual Harassment Survey of 2002 (again pdf). In light of the later Task Force Report, the Harassment Survey seems too weak because it ignores problems with under reporting.

I'm trying not to bore with a list of studies but here's another available online. And then there's the Denver Post articles.

Sadler, A.G., B.M. Booth, B.L. Cook, and B.N. Doebbeling. 2003. Factors Associated with Women’s Risk of Rape in the Military Environment. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 43:262–273.

Super Nintendo Chalmers

In case you missed it, Chalmers Johnson was on Talk of the Nation recently. I highly highly encourage everyone to check this guy out.

Check out the show and a book excerpt here.

One great part of the interview is that you can practically hear host, Neil Cohen, freaking out like a square after everything Johnson says. When Neil does have a chance to speak, he has to furiously backpedal to keep the show in line with the current Americanized view of history and foreign policy. Johnson, on the other hand, is all over the map discussing topics ranging from the kidnapping and rape of a 12 year-old girl by US soldiers on Okinawa to Greek mythology to current federal budgetary considerations. Suffice it to say that I doubt that he will be invited back to the show (or any other show on npr for that matter). So, don't worry, his name will be going down right after Noam Chomsky on the old blacklist and we'll be listening to the opinions of media-controlling think tanks like the Heritage foundation again tomorrow.

You can also read a great article about national security here.

I just have to reiterate that this guy is the best. His new book "Nemesis" just came out and I haven't gotten a copy yet but it looks great. I started reading his other books "The Sorrows of Empire" and "Blowback" after a good friend pointed me in that direction. These are scholarly but approachable books written with rare clarity and consistent insights. He presents original perspectives sharpened with repeated evidence and first hand experience at a speed that is almost breathtaking. I had to stop reading after every chapter just to digest.

One last Johnson article. This one is free economic advice.


While everyone was shrugging their shoulders over how the Japanese economy explosion occurred in the 80s Johnson investigated and came out of nowhere with what is widely considered the most plausible explanation for what happened in his book "MITI and the Japanese miracle". It sounds like a book for robot children and sadly it's not exciting reading unless you're an economist.

His later work "Blowback" warns of impending terrorist dangers facing the US in the form of terrorist activities as reciprocity (i.e. blowback) for US interference in other countries. The book essentially predicted a 911 like scenario before it was on anyone's radar.

"The Sorrows of Empire" reveals a hidden truth in the formation and preservation of the US empire of military bases. If you're still reading this post, please go and listen to the show.

The Skeptical PEAR

Apparently, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (PEAR) is closing or moving or something like that. The lab studied the effects of consciousness on the world mainly through the use of random number generators. I think that the use of random number generators (also called random event generators) is an really brilliant device for measuring the effects of consciousness. Outside of PEAR, many other groups especially in Noetic science have been using them to great effect.

So, I've been listening to and reading media coverage of the PEAR closure and wincing. Most coverage takes relish in the opportunity to trot out references to spoon bending, voodoo, and new agey/drug culture. Every serious fact or comment must be followed up with a snicker possibly in the interest of balance.

One of my favorite ironies is how self-titled skeptics invoke the name of science to spread their belief (or in this case disbelief) in human consciousness. Denying your own existence is an amusing but difficult sell since literally no person ever experiences anything other than their own existence. But what does experience matter when you can get to truth directly using science. Also, according to many skeptics, scientific findings are only valid if they fit into a predetermined belief system of "the possible".

To help illustrate my point, here is a quote from a letter from Marcello Truzzi (founder of the Zetetic Scholar) to Douglas Hofstadter which can be found in Hofstadter's outstanding book, Metamagical Themas:

"The term 'skeptic' has become unfortunately equated with disbelief rather than its proper meaning of nonbelief ... I view [this type of skeptic] as obstructing inquiry because it has prejudged many areas of inquiry by labeling them pseudo-scientific prior to serious inquiry... [and] in its fervor to debunk, has tended to lump the
nonsense of the National Enquirer with serious scientific research programs".

I'm sure to bring up Metamagical Themas again in the future.