The new troubling toy

After acquiring my new toy I soon discovered a major problem: I am unable to get iTunes to transfer a selection of my extensive music-collection. Despite iTunes being absolutely annoying, with the VLC-player app it does enable me to transfer video-files. Not sure watching films is so great, but I do use it for documentaries and episodes of Coupling, Blackadder, et cetera.

Still not content because I was unable to use the mp3 part more trouble was ahead. A few weeks ago my facebook-app refused to upload pictures. Then, last week the toy even refused to synchronise alltogether. The upstart started telling me it needed to be restored to factory settings. Not in the least planning to do that I asked Dah Google for advise.

Apparently I am not the first to encounter this nuisance. One of the solutions suggested was working around iTunes by installing CopyTrans™ (formerly CopyPod). Indeed, that worked. With some tweaking the toy finally wanted to synch with iTunes again. After securing my contacts I updated the firmware. Yes, iTunes wants to synchronise again.

Added benefit, for the first time I am now able to copy music without using iTunes. And yes, it sounds great. Part of the wishlist for Christmas is a new set of headphones so I can better enjoy the experience.

Update: If you need some apps for your toy, here are some suggestions.

Update II: Have now discovered how to "reboot" the iPhone, and am happy to announce it is updated to the latest firmware (july 2011).

Pay no attention to the man behind the screen

One of the most frustrating things to me is the absolute inability, or is it unwillingness, of journalists to recognise what the story they report is about. This is the theme of this blog: I try to encourage people to seek out information and always question what is being told, i.e. "what basis is there for these claims?" Unfortunately people are easily misled, and information presented by journalists is inherently unreliable. The most recent example of what is wrong with our ability to ascertain the facts is the publication by Wikileaks of documents that are embarrasing to the US. As usual the incompetent and obfuscating characteristics of the media, that are supposed to adequately inform us, engage in their typical method of protecting those in power.

As always, the intrepid reporter notices those juicy bits about Julian Assange's life. Which, regardless of the topic, generate more stories than the initial disclosure of fraudulent, criminal or misleading behaviour by the powerful. Commenting on the media's interest in diverting attention with ad hominems Greenwald remarked:

... what I do know -- as John Cole notes -- is this:  as soon as Scott Ritter began telling the truth about Iraqi WMDs, he was publicly smeared with allegations of sexual improprieties.  As soon as Eliot Spitzer began posing a real threat to Wall Street criminals, a massive and strange federal investigation was launched over nothing more than routine acts of consensual adult prostitution, ending his career (and the threat he posed to oligarchs).  And now, the day after Julian Assange is responsible for one of the largest leaks in history, an arrest warrant issues that sharply curtails his movement and makes his detention highly likely.

While all this titellating stuff is unfolding The New York Times is still unable to call torture torture. As Greenwald reports that:

the NYT in its article on brutal detainee abuse steadfastly avoids using the word "torture" to describe what was done, consistent with its U.S.-Government-serving formal policy of refusing to use that word where U.S. policy is involved.  By stark contrast, virtually every other media account uses that term to describe the heinous abuse of detainees chronicled by this leak, the only term that accurately applies:  see The Guardian ("American military documents that detail torture, summary executions and war crimes"); BBC (US "ignored Iraq torture"); Politico ("a devastating portrait of apparent U.S. indifference to a pattern of murder and torture by the Iraqi army").  BoingBoing appropriately mocks the NYT's increasingly humiliating no-"torture" policy by creating a euphemism-generator.

The role of the media as defender of the powerful is evidenced by the reaction to these documents. Greenwald compares it to the response by Nixon to the Pentagon Papers and notes:

Predictably, just as happened with Ellsberg, there is now a major, coordinated effort underway to smear WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange, and to malign his mental health -- all as a means of distracting attention away from these highly disturbing revelations and to impede the ability of WikiLeaks to further expose government secrets and wrongdoing with its leaks.  But now, the smear campaign is led not by Executive Branch officials, but by members of the establishment media.  As the intelligence community reporter Tim Shorrock wrote today on Twitter:  "When Dan Ellsberg leaked [the] Pentagon Papers, Nixon's henchmen tried to destroy his reputation. Today w/Wikileaks & Assange, media does the job."

And commenting on statements by Howard Kurtz maligning Assange:

You will never, ever hear people like Kurtz, or John Burns, using these kinds of disparaging insults for any American political or military official with actual power -- not even (especially not) the ones whose "delusions" about Saddam's nuclear clouds and team of mad chemical scientists and alliances with Al Qaeda caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, the displacement of millions more, and human suffering and misery on an unimaginable scale.  As Burns explained, with those people:  "You build up a kind of trust. It's not explicit, it's just there. And my feeling is that it’s the responsibility of the reporter to judge in those circumstances what is fairly reportable, and what is not, and to go beyond that, what it is necessary to report."

In what I consider a surreal reaction The Guardian reports that:

A Fox News contributor and former state department adviser has accused WikiLeaks of conducting "political warfare against the US" and called for those behind the whistleblowing website to be declared "enemy combatants" so they can be subjected to "non-judicial actions".

Apparently free speech applies only to those in power. Then there is the article The Washington Post and WikiLeaks, by Scott Horton, which details some significant revelations such as:

... the disclosure of a Fragmentary Order (“Frago”) authorizing soldiers not to investigate cases of torture that do not involve coalition forces is extremely important. It counts as evidence of high-level policy to countenance war crimes and violations of the prohibition on torture, which requires not only investigation but also intervention. Recall this astonishing exchange that occurred between Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace at a DOD press conference in November 2005. Pace stated “it is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it…” Rumsfeld interrupted and contradicted him, but Pace stood his ground. He was reciting well anchored military doctrine. He was also overruled by Rumsfeld.

Responding to the "blood on his hands"-meme, Horton said:

When pressed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Gates was forced to admit that these claims were hyperbole—“the leak… did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods.” Gates went on to acknowledge that there was no evidence of any informant being killed or threatened or even requesting protection as a result of the WikiLeaks publications. Why then has the Post editorial page decided to ape agitprop that the Pentagon itself has all but retracted? Maybe they don’t read their own paper.

He continues:

After looking through the latest WikiLeaks document dump, she writes that she is now persuaded that “top American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world.” Tellingly, her piece appears not in the Post but in the Daily Beast, and she’s supplemented it with a detailed review of the documents involved at Foreign Policy.

The possible benefits of what we have learned so far are summarised by Kevin Jon Heller, while Johann Hari stresses its importance. In light of that consider the response to evidence of possible war crimes, or the destruction of evidence regarding the torture regime. For some very important reason investigating, let alone prosecuting, those involved did not generate the amount of zeal we now experience towards Assange whose alleged crime constitutes of fascilitation of publishing information detrimental to those used to being beyond (judicial) scrutiny. Wikileaks has brought the ever present propaganda into the sunlight. That, of course, cannot stand. Hence the hysterical legal and rhetorical response. Interestingly, those opposing Wikileaks face the Gordian knot of how to prosecute Assange without criminalising journalism alltogether.

The game of politics, as evidenced above, is comparable to, and dependent on, the anti-science movement. For both accurate and factual information is anathema to their ideological and egocentric position. Once the spread of misinformation, if not lies, is exposed like magicians they lose their lure. It should therefore come as no surprise that both groups abhor transparancy and reject accountability. Since the main stream media no longer adhere to what Lord Northcliffe said:

"News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising."

any organisation exposing those that take advantage of us, by insisting we should stay uninformed and vehemently try to convince us we should ignore the man behind the curtain, has my support.

Guide to Christmas shopping

Its that time of the season when we are searching for the finer things in life. Well, at least I find myself in the midst of that that age-old conundrum: what do I buy? As I did in the past you will find I present some ideas for your shopping lists. You can start at The Times for a Christmas Gift Guide, or The Guardian for Unique Christmas gift ideas: Luxury gifts for men, which is part of their Christmas gift ideas. Nice stylish articles at The Sydney Morning Herald can be found in their Christmas gift guide 2010. Subsequently try The Observer which discusses the 10 best Christmas whiskies, as part of Observer Food Monthly's complete guide to Christmas, while The Independent offers us the 50 best winter reads. More luxurious stuff are suggested by The Age in their Christmas Gift Guide. In The Miami Herald you find Dave Barry’s Guide to Holiday Gifts. Also Esquire has Gifts to Give If You're Broke: The $25-and-Under Guide. Go to Film.com for a more cinematographic type of gift: Gift Guide: Film Memorabilia, DVDs, and Toys, and Gizmodo can help the more nerdy types with Gizmodo's Gift Guides.

Update: You might want to follow Santa on his journey this Christmas.

Freedom of speech: clarification

A few days ago I suggested accountability for those that intentionally spread lies that cause harm to others. In comments marko makes several good points. Nonetheless, they do not apply to what I wanted to say. To avoid any misunderstanding let me clarify. Freedom of speech has nasty side-effects. In an attempt to protect us against them I offered two solutions:

First, limit what people can say. marko offers good arguments as to why this is a problematic approach. That is why I concluded this should not be done. So far, we agree.

Second, make people accountable for the consequences of their right to say whatever they want. Again, some convincing arguments appear to make this route untenable. That is, if you would make this about any influence (film, book, painting) causing others to interpret that as a call to arms.

This is not what I intended, nor said. Just to be sure, I am talking about the willful spread of misinformation, lies, and propaganda with the intention to advance ones ideology while explicitly rejecting contrary evidence. Not infrequently do we see explicit advise to do, or not do, certain things. This ,of course, should be allowed, but if people act on those lies, and this causes harm, the abuse of freedom of speech should result in accountability.

Unsurprisingly the anti-science brigade is mostly inspired by religion. To cite Holy books as origin for unsupported beliefs -refusing to vaccinate, rejecting global warming, opposing evolution, et cetera- is one thing. To go out and tell people not to use condoms because some imaginary friend tells you to is quite another. Aside from the fact that I have not found the exact part where it says "being gay is a sin," "vaccination is evil," "the earth is 6000 years old," "Darwin is wrong," "Galileo is wrong," .......... (you get my drift) once you start evangelising the gospel "science is bad, ideology is good" you are responsible. Especially when you are shown the error of that proposition on numerous occasions: i.e. condoms do protect against STD's, vaccines save lifes, the earth is not flat.

To illustrate my view on accountability: randomly shooting your M16 is allowed. However, if a neighbour gets shot, because you are standing in the middle of the street while doing that, you will be criminally charged. Like bullets, words are dangerous and therefore require responsibility in its user. There can be no misunderstanding, my suggestion applies only to promoting unsupported, and discredited, opinions which are detrimental to our health. If this is still ambiguous to you, look at the following:

1. Infectious disease promotion movement: vaccines are evil, and germ theory denial, resulting in re-emerging of preventable diseases,
2. Alt-med works and is harmless: incorrect, since it both delays adequate treatment with therapies that do not work, and has serious side-effects,
3. HIV-denialists: obstructing prevention and adequate treatment,
4. Smoking does not cause cancer: after introducing a smoking ban a sharp decline of cancer and coronary-disease, 
5. Abstinence only prevents pregnancy and STD's: incorrect, it actually causes the opposite, it increases the risk,
6. Global warming is a hoax: discredited propaganda claiming we do not need to invest in better energypolicy, resulting in increased dangers to our planet, 
7. Killing in defence of The Truth: murder is always a reliable statement when you are incapable of explaining why ideology trumps reason,  
8. Shouting fire in a cinema: irresponsible behaviour in general,
9. War on Drugs: stressing the evils of drugs while ignoring the sociological drama and the risks of alcohol and tobacco,
10. Muslims want to kill us: as argument why the War of Terror is merely self-defence, and no, they help us, (compare: McCarthyism)
11. There were WMD's: ignoring evidence to the contrary this caused hundreds of thousands to die, and millions became a refugee, 
12. Torture is the only way we can win: an age old, and utterly nonsensical, argument which is dissected here,

The above examples are just that: examples. The list goes on and on. In all these cases, time and again, the ideological claim has been proven wrong. To cite an article in the European Journal of Public Health:

All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus, convincing many of the public, and often the media too, that the consensus is not based on ‘sound science’ or denying that there is a consensus by exhibiting individual dissenting voices as the ultimate authorities on the topic in question. Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action to tackle threats to health.

This is referred to as denialism. The article identifies five characteristics:

1. The identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy.
2. Fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge.
3. Selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.
4. Creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. 
5. Use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies.

That is what I object to. Nobody should be allowed to invoke freedom of speech and transform it into the right to disseminate lies. It is in these situations I propose accountability for irresponsible behaviour. The active promotion of (medical) disinformation leads to increased morbidity and mortality, which is evident to every reasonable person willing, and able, to understand the difference between fact and fiction. Claiming to be presenting factual information when it clearly involves refuting established science is not comparable to writing books or making cinema.

No, I am not advocating a witchhunt. It would still be required to present evidence that harm -i.e. HIV infections, epidemics of infectious diseases, hatecrimes, et cetera- is linked to what was said by denialists. However, if such a causal effect can be proven why should the anti-science movement not be liable in the legal sense?

Concluding, I am against prohibiting specific views, but would make those that irresponsibly -as in: choosing ideology over reason- promote dangerous behaviour accountable for the resulting harm. Freedom of speech comes at a price!

Update: The right to lie gives us this.

Update II: Regarding alternative medicine it is possible to take a more legalistic approach, Brennen McKenzie just started a series on the topic:

When I write or talk about the scientific evidence against particular alternative medical approaches, I am frequently asked the question, “So, if it doesn’t work, why is it legal?” Believers in CAM ask this to show that there must be something to what they are promoting or, presumably, the government wouldn’t let them sell it. And skeptics raise the question often out of sheer incredulity that anyone would be allowed to make money selling a medical therapy that doesn’t work. It turns out that the answer to this question is a complex, multilayered story involving science, history, politics, religion, and culture.

And:

What I hope to do in this series of essays is look at some of the major themes involved in the regulation of medical practice, particularly as they relate to alternative medicine. I will begin by touching on some of the general philosophical and legal issues that have defined the debate among the politicians and lawyers responsible for shaping the legal environment in which medicine is practiced.

Update III: Yet another example of the freedom of misinformation.

Update IV: Using Bush's card-trick here is the denialism deck of cards.

Update V: The right to mislead claims yet another victim.

Vaccine Unawareness Week

November has arrived and the infectious-disease-promotion-movement has its "Vaccine Awareness Week." Therefore they are being offered a less Halloween inspired week of science-based information regarding vaccines. Probably they are not interested in a rational debate because the willfully blind ignore information contradicting their ideology. This inoculates them against the current correcting "misinformation week"-week. So, this week supporters of critical thinking attempt to reach the worried and misguided adherents of the anti-science crowd. Articles promoting critical thinking can be suggested at Science-Based Medicine:

Many of our fellow science bloggers are on board as well. We will use this site at aggregate as many science-based posts about vaccines and public health as we find. If you have or know of any that are not listed, please let us know in the comments and we will add it.

The first posts are already on-line. Steven Novella deconstructs the propaganda surrounding flu vaccines while Orac revisits a previous post:

About seven months ago, I encountered a profoundly intellectually dishonest set of graphs done by Obomsawin that were designed to demonstrate that "vaccines didn't save us."

and:

I note that, not only have the graphs not been changed as far as I can tell, but Dr. Obomsawin is scheduled to give a webinar tomorrow evening (exactly 24 hours from now, actually) entitled Graphic Reality: The Charting of Truth in which he is apparently going to argue the same old nonsense that "vaccines didn't save us."

Orac notes that he:

intended for a while to go back and revisit Obomsawin's remaining nonsense. Somehow I just never got around to it. As you may recall, in my original post I didn't deconstruct all of his graphs and how deceptively he used them. Vaccine Awareness Week might be the perfect opportunity to rectify that oversight.

Please visit the above mentioned aggregate site frequently this week for more. You may also be interested in what immune response is, since this is what vaccines attempt to augment. Some background can be found here.

Update: Red flag? Mercola will help us fight those scientists. All you need to do is buy something from him.

Update II: Collecting articles trying to protect us against the infectious-disease-promotion-movement Liz Ditz makes it easy for us to follow these posts.

Update III: At Science-Based Medicine Harriet Hall adds:

Physicians, has a feature called AFP Journal Club, where physicians analyze a journal article that either involves a hot topic affecting family physicians or busts a commonly held medical myth. In the September 15, 2010 issue they discussed “Vaccines and autism: a tale of shifting hypotheses,” by Gerber and Offit, published in Clinical Infectious Diseases in 2009.  
The article presented convincing evidence to debunk 3 myths:

1. MMR causes autism.
2. Thimerosal (mercury) causes autism.
3. Simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms and weakens the immune system, triggering autism in a susceptible host.

Next is Steven Novella who analyses the history of chicken pox and the fairy-tales from the anti-vaccine brigade, and Orac shows another example of crank magnetism.

Update IV: The current endeavour is noticed in New Zealand by Skeptics in the Pub. Information on Vaccination Safety and Quality is available at the WHO website and EBM-first offers us some valuable links. More on influenza, effectiveness of vaccination and its risks, are discussed by Science-Based Pharmacy. Also, I found an old, but sadly still relevant, article there which was a response to the misinformation spread by those who prefer the return of preventable infectious diseases. As an aside, in Canada there already was a National Immunization Awareness Week earlier this year. Striking is an article written by Dr. Jay L. Wile. In his own words:

He is best known for the "Exploring Creation with..." series of textbooks written for junior high and high school students who are being educated at home.

With this background I was pleasantly surprised to read:

Because people in California are refusing the whooping cough vaccine in large numbers, whooping cough is rearing its ugly head there. Children are needlessly becoming sick and dying, and we have the misinformation spread by anti-vaccine people to thank for it.

Pretty amazing. Then there is the nice overview "Not Dangerous, and Irresponsible to Opt-out of" by Todd W. Finally, for those wandering the intertubes, here is a guide to evaluate trustworthiness of websites.