What is the intent of a Facebook 'meme'

Facebook includes a great many 'memes' - which are usually photos with some text superimposed on them, making some point about something.  Topics run the gamut, from one end of a spectrum to another.  All sides on any issue make use of them on Facebook.

Whenever I post a meme, usually a re-posting from someone else - I've only originated a handful of them - I'm constantly bombarded by complaints from people who castigate me for posting such a meme.  There comments typically fall in one of several categories:

• The meme overgeneralizes - not everyone in some category mentioned by the meme engages in the evidently silly behavior mentioned in the meme.
• The meme is incomplete - it omits/ignores certain facts, or it fails to include mitigating circumstances
• The meme is biased - it's not consistent with a wholly objective analysis of the situation it claims to represent
• The meme can be interpreted to imply that certain groups are always responsible for bad behavior while other groups are never responsible for that behavior

These incessant complaints about memes, it seems to me, are missing the point of posting the memes.  A meme is not capable of nuanced analysis.  Its capabilities for a full 'fair and balanced' presentation are sufficiently limited that such a requirement can't ever be achieved by a meme.  It's not quite so limited as a simple slogan, but it's not far from it.  The basic characteristic of Facebook memes is their one-sidedness.  Of course they're biased!  Is anything that anyone says ever wholly unbiased?  Of course they don't comprise a comprehensive analysis - the medium simply precludes that.  How one interprets a meme depends on the individual - you may read something into it that's not actually explicitly in the meme - implications can be quite subjective.  We may not agree on how to interpret the meme, after all.

So just what is the intent of a meme?  I certainly can't answer that in a wholly comprehensive way - I can't speak for everyone who posts them.  But it seems to me that the intent is to provoke a discussion.  I know when I repost memes, I'm often interested in hearing how the "targets" of the meme would respond to what the meme says.  Whining that the meme isn't comprehensive, or overgeneralizes, or fails to be 'fair and balanced' is simply avoiding the issue that the meme presents.  Is this true? Is it accurate?  If not, what can you present that shows that?  If the information is inaccurate or misleading, in what way is it so?  What are your sources that you believe validate your dispute of what it says?  If you're concerned about what it implies, rather than what it states explicitly, are you willing to accept that your interpretation of what it says might be different from my interpretation?  If our interpretations are different, which of us is 'right'?  Is it possible for us to decide that?  On what basis?

A meme is not a debate - it's a statement.  Such a statement might stimulate a discussion/debate, but it isn't a self-contained presentation of all sides - it is not a self-contained presentation of all conceivable sides.  Please let us discuss the merits or demerits of the meme's content without whining about it not being what a meme cannot be.  I enjoy the opportunity to learn how other people, who think differently from me, see the issues contained in the meme.  But please don't bitch to me about the meme on the basis of some criterion it can't possibly achieve!

The perils of whistle-blowing

As I write this, Bradley Manning has been sentenced to 35 years in military prison for passing classified documents to Wikileaks containing information about military atrocities going on in Iraq.  The extent to which the revelations actually caused the military any harm, other than to its reputation, isn't known with certainty, but seems to be negligible.  And Edward Snowden is a fugitive after he leaked classified information about the National Security Agency's massive eavesdropping policies.  What these two cases have in common is that the whistle-blowers revealed classified information, which is clearly illegal and represents a compromise of security.

But the problem with the 'security' classification of this information is that it was, effectively, being used to cover up what amounts to illegal activities.  We have seen this many times during my life.  Politicians like Richard Nixon used a similar tactic ('executive privilege') to deny access to information that would be embarrassing or even criminal.  Yes, those who reveal classified information usually have broken laws - laws that are necessary for national security, but laws that also allow unscrupulous people to cover up their misdeeds.  I have mixed feelings about both Manning and Snowden - no question they broke laws - laws that are necessary for national security.  But the deeds being covered up also are illegal.  Should someone be tried, convicted, and sentenced harshly for revealing the truth about criminal activities?  Why are not those committing those revealed crimes also on trial for their actions? 

Any whistle-blower must confront the reality that revealing what truths they have is not going to be well-received by the unscrupulous.  The target of whistle-blowing is quite likely to fight back with accusations of their own, teams of lawyers, and the tacit support of government, including judges!  For instance, we now have laws in several states that make it illegal to film agricultural practices (e.g., industrial production of foodstuffs from livestock) that might reveal extreme cruelty to the animals.  The agricultural corporations and other big producers don't want anyone to know how the food they buy is produced, and they have the explicit support of state governments in their wish to maintain secrecy about their practices.

Several years back, my wife and I were photographing some thistle flowers in the Texas panhandle, when an unmarked car drove up and an armed security guard told us that we could not photograph the chemical plant several miles away.  We explained what we were doing and he admonished us to be sure not to shoot towards the plant, and we agreed not to do so.  After he drove away, we noticed that many of the thistles were malformed in ways that suggested the toxicity of the conditions in which they were growing - no doubt something the company operating the plant would not want to be known.  No, I didn't know the identity of that company at the time, so I can't name them now.  If I could, I would.

Choosing to be a whistle-blower is quite likely to result in loss of your job, and may well lead to your arrest and conviction for various reasons, often seemingly unrelated to the deeds you revealed by blowing the whistle.  Your reputation can be smeared, your life destroyed, and the people whose criminal activities you exposed are likely to escape scot-free.  Is this really the sort of justice system we want in America?  Are we not becoming a crypto-fascist police state where the rich call the shots, backed up by government police power, and the rest of us have to toe the line?  The 4th Amendment to the Constitution is becoming irrelevant in our so-called justice system, where "probable cause" is no longer required for many searches and seizures.  I repeat:  is this the sort of America we want?

Intellectual arrogance?

Recently, in some FB 'discussions' I was subjected to some scathing accusations of intellectual arrogance.  According to my detractors, I was wrongly criticizing and even ridiculing certain people - those who claim supernatural 'explanations' for ordinary events.  The crux of my intent in the thread was to indicate that defaulting immediately to a supernatural 'explanation' comes readily to certain (initially unnamed) folks.  An unstated but still justifiably implied aspect of this is that many folks who accept supernatural 'explanations' are not very intelligent. Of course, FB discussions are characterized by ignorance on all sides of who and what one's 'opponent' really is.  This is unfortunate, as people become alienated by a single post or comment in a 'discussion'.  But moving on ...

The whole domain of "intelligence" is a minefield.  Just what precisely does one mean when discussing the topic of intelligence?  There are many different types of intelligence - in a recent scientific paper, the authors defined intelligence, for their purposes, to be the "ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience".  Other definitions are possible.  The authors used the intelligence quotient (IQ) as the metric.  Yes, there are issues with IQ, including knowing just precisely what it actually measures, but I'm in no position to enter into such discussions.  The paper was published in a refereed journal, which gives it some credibility but is not an absolute guarantee that the work is flawless.  Pursuant to that, the authors went to some length to summarize ther perceived limitations on the work, as any good scientific paper should do.  No single scientific paper can ever provide absolute proof of anything, nor can a single paper provide perfectly accurate, comprehensive understanding of the topic.  This manuscript simply provides evidence in support of the hypothesis that a negative relationship exists between intelligence and "religiosity" - according to the authors

The religiosity measures included belief scales that assessed various themes related to religiosity (e.g., belief in God and/or the importance of church). In addition, we included studies that measured frequency of religious behaviors (e.g., church attendance, prayer), participation in religious
organizations, and membership in denominations.

At least as defined by the metrics used in the study, the more religious the person, the lower the intelligence, on average.  The reason I'm spending this much effort with this recent scientific publication should be clear.  There's scientific evidence to back up my implication that defaulting to a supernatural 'explanation' for something is an indicator of lower intelligence than what would be implied when a rational evidence-based explanation is sought for something.

Note that the relationship between intelligence and religiosity is not a perfect one-for-one relationship.  I know many people who are undeniably intelligent and yet maintain strong religious beliefs.  Although I find such a position to be untenable and inexplicable by logic and evidence, I must accept the reality that religious believers are not inevitably low down on the IQ scale.  But believers are much less common in, say, the scientific community wherein intelligence tends to be much higher (on the average) than in the general population.

I've also been accused by these detractors as "arrogant" and "narcissistic" when I question the beliefs of people who seek comfort in supernatural beliefs.  Why should I deny those people the comfort they derive from their beliefs?  Who gave me the right to say their beliefs are wrong or stupid?  My detractors fail to see the arrogance and narcissim implied in their questions - they're claiming for themselves the right to tell me I'm wrong and they're confident in their superiority to me when they call me narcissistic.  In other words, my detractors are projecting their own flaws onto me, which is one indicator of narcissism (i.e., "Problems distinguishing the self from others") - what they see in me is what exists within themselves.  When confronted with that possibility (that they themselves are guilty of the accusations leveled at me), of course they denied it vehemently.  One even denied that calling me a narcissist was name-calling!  Evidently, by this pitiful logic, calling someone a name is not name-calling when you believe the name has been applied correctly to the recipient.  I rest my case, in this example.

As for the putative right to say someone's reasoning is right or wrong - no one had to give it to me at all.  Like my detractors, I have no moral or legal restriction in the USA on what I can say about someone's reasoning.  Someone's beliefs are not morally or Constitutionally-protected from criticism or even ridicule.  I see no reason to withhold my questions and criticisms about someone's beliefs - there's also no Constitutional protection from being offended by free speech.  I certainly don't ask for any restrictions on someone's right to question my reasoning or even to ridicule my atheism - but I'd prefer it be done with some modicum of logic and/or evidence, so that I might actually learn something from it!

The reason I challenge the beliefs of the religious (and other supernatural elements such as UFO mythology) is that we're living in dangerous times.  It might be comforting to delude yourself about such things as the afterlife, but those beliefs come with a high price.  Carl Sagan has said "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."  To choose voluntarily to eschew the use of rationality and instead to promote the notion of accepting doctrine on faith alone is to encourage what I see as a sort of modern insanity, whereby ordinary people become fanatics - terrorists, bombers, arsonists, or mass murderers - all in the name of a belief in the supernatural.  This was barbaric even in the times when the Abrahamic religious 'sacred' texts were written, but it's intolerable in the present.  Such irrationality endangers us all.  Consider the belief held by many christians that when the "rapture" comes, all the believers will be "saved" and live forever in paradise.  Do you want someone who seriously accepts that doctrine to be at the controls of a thermonuclear war?  In their irrational view, they have only gain to anticipate in their afterlife ... that should bother people!  Same for the suicide bombers and their supposed 72 virgins - we have direct evidence of what those believers are willing to do in the name of religion.

Yes, I know that not every religious believer is a terrorist - many so-called 'moderates' deny any violent intentions and I'm sure most of them never will commit violent deeds.  But when those moderates fail to stand up in opposition to violence and evils such as bigotry sanctioned by their religions, they implicitly sanction those acts.   By the way, atheism has no doctrine, no 'sacred' texts approving of murder, genocide, misogyny, slavery, abuse and selling of children, etc.  Atheism has no clergy or prophets or sacred authority figures to urge atheists to say or do anything.  There are no examples I know about of atheist violence in the name of atheism (Please don't waste time telling me about communist atrocities)!

What is the "new atheism" about?

Recently, the famous Noam Chomsky has taken on the famous Richard Dawkins, a person widely recognized to be a leader of the aggressive 'new atheism' - here is an excerpt from Chomsky on this topic:

...  I haven't been thrilled by the atheist movement. First, who is the audience? Is it religious extremists? Say right-wing evangelical Christians like George Bush (as you rightly point out)? Or is it very prominent Rabbis in Israel who call for visiting the judgment of Amalek on all Palestinians (total destruction, down to their animals)? Or is it the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have been Washington's most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years (note that Bush's current trip to the Middle East celebrates two events: the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, and the 75th anniversary of establishment of US-Saudi relations, each of which merits more comment)? If those are the intended audiences, the effort is plainly a waste of time. Is the audience atheists? Again a waste of time. Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven? If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs. Is it those who have religious affiliations and beliefs, but don't have to be reminded of what they knew as teenagers about the genocidal character of the Bible, the fact that biblical accounts are not literal truths, or that religion has often been the banner under which hideous crimes were carried out (the Crusades, for example)? Plainly not.

" The message is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds. Who, in fact, is the audience?

" Furthermore, if it is to be even minimally serious, the "new atheism" should focus its concerns on the ***virulent secular religions of state worship***, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim -- arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I've discussed elsewhere. In brief, to be minimally serious the "new atheism" should begin by looking in the mirror.

Without going on, I haven't found it thrilling, though condemnation of dangerous beliefs and great crimes is always in order.

So what exactly is the new atheism about?  I certainly can't speak for Richard Dawkins and, while I like many (not all) of the things he says, I have no intention of defending him here.  He can take care of himself.  There are no real leaders of atheism, because atheists as a group are inherently incapable of being lead.  Atheists, for the most part, are freethinkers and don't have anything remotely resembling a unified agenda.  The only thing they all agree on is their shared disbelief in a deity.  Because they form their own ideas and question even the prominent atheists, like Dawkins, they resist being told what to think and what to do.  At least not in the sense of blindly following some authority figure.  When a group of atheists gets together, you can count on constant bickering, back-stabbing, ad hominem insults, and hateful remarks directed at each other.  A herd of cats is docile and subservient compared with a group of atheists.  It's a handicap in defending ourselves that we get along so poorly, I suppose.

Chomsky apparently thinks, like many believers, that atheists are mostly trying to convert others to atheism.  The challenge facing the 'new atheism' is not to convert believers to atheism, at least not for all atheists.  What we confront collectively is an aggressive move by many religions to merge government and religion - to create a theocracy.  Despite revisionist historical claims by christians, the US is not a christian nation - it was established as a secular nation, with a wall of separation between church and state.  The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because it was deemed important by the founders to prevent tyranny of the majority (If two wolves and a lamb are together, guess which one gets voted to be dinner!), including the majority christians. 
 
Atheists are widely despised in the US, as several recent polls have shown.  There's a lot about atheism that's not understood by the believer majority - there are many myths that perpetuate discrimination against atheists.  In the US today, it's easier to come out of the homosexual closet than it is to come out as an atheist (e.g., Barney Frank).  Families and friends turn their backs on you, you could be fired from your job, you're essentially unelectable as a public official, you can receive death threats, various forms of discrimination, etc.

We atheists are asked often "Why are you so aggressive?  Why not just let people practice whatever religion they wish and keep your ideas to yourself?"   I think most atheists would be just fine with that ... if believers would stop their aggressive proselytizing and pushing their agenda into local, state, and federal government.  If you find comfort in your beliefs, we have no issue with that, even though we see it as a form of the placebo effect - if it works for you, great!  However, the christian majority has gone so far as to claim we're inhibiting their religious freedom when we protest their intrusion into politics, legislation, and public education!  The only 'freedom' we atheists are inhibiting is the nonexistent 'right' to impose your religious ideas on everyone!

'Aggressive' atheists frequently are accused of intellectual snobbery, because they criticize believers for not being rational in their beliefs, or because they ridicule those beliefs.  Believer claims can be so absurd, it's difficult not to make fun of them.  And there does indeed seem to be a strong correlation between IQ and an absence of belief in a deity (For instance, unlike the general population of the US, only a minority of scientists are religious.).  But the ridicule and the criticism from atheists is aimed at the beliefs, not the people.  I realize that for many believers, their beliefs are inextricably linked to who they think themselves to be, so I can understand that criticizing their beliefs can be offensive to them.  But there's no legal or moral protection for one's beliefs - they're all open to criticism, parody, satire, and other forms of ridicule.  If you're offended by that, that's your choice and your problem, because there's no constitutional right to not be offended.  Constitutional freedom of speech is not limited to that speech you find to be non-offensive.  We'll shut up when believers do.

Many atheists, including me, are aggressive in supporting freedom and liberty for all, not just the majority.  We're fine if you want to accept as reality some dusty old myths from the late Bronze Age.  We're fine if you want to buy into fairy tales told by some guy who had figured out a way to parlay religion into an endless supply of women for himself.  We think you have the right to believe entirely as you wish ... provided you don't push your beliefs on us, either by proselytizing or by enacting legislation that establishes your beliefs on everyone, and especially not at the threat of violence.  Do those things and we'll push back appropriately.  Many of us are committed to not letting you force your beliefs on us, and so we fight such things aggressively.  And I'm not about to apologize to anyone about that.
 
We don't understand how otherwise intelligent people accept mythology as reality, with no credible evidence to support those myths.  People who allow themselves to accept doctrine solely on faith (in the absence of credible evidence) are a bit scary to us.  After all, religious persecution of agnostics and atheists has a long, bloody history.  When 'moderates' fail to protest, in the strongest possible terms, violence committed in the name of religion, that's a worrisome issue for us.  I hope you can understand that.

The Power of Racial Epithets

When I was a boy, my cousin learned that I really disliked a name my father had given me:  Charley-boy.  Surely my father had no malicious intent with what was simply a term of endearment, but it really bothered me, as often happens between children and parents.  So of course, my cousin picked up on its effect over me, and used it as a way to tease me.  The more I reacted to it, the more he used it.

Eventually, I found a way to stop the teasing.  I would pretend that it no longer bothered me, and any anger I felt over the use of "Charley-boy" I kept strictly to myself.  I had to learn how to show indifference with no trace of any concern in my words or in my body language.  And it worked!  After a while, he stopped using it because it no longer had any effect on me (that he could detect).  And even more interesting, the name eventually lost its power over my emotional responses.  I didn't have to pretend anymore because the name actually no longer bothered me.  I can tell the story and everyone on the planet can call me that, if they wish, and it simply wouldn't have any effect on me, apart from losing the use of my chosen nickname, Chuck, which I prefer.

The point of this bit of nostalgia in the context of this blog is simply this:  the use of ethnic slurs (spick, wop, nigger, kike, mick, raghead, camel jock, blanket-ass, frog, kraut, elephant jock, chink, jap, limey) can engender an emotional response from its targets only if they choose to grant a simple word that sort of power over them.  It's strictly voluntary!  The people who would use a racial epithet intending it as an insult take advantage of that power you have granted to the word in order to create an emotional response from you.  Words have no inherent power - they have only whatever power that we give them.  Otherwise, they're nothing more than arbitrary sounds and arbitrary letters in arbitrary combinations.  Are you insulted by 'cusquet'?  Seems unlikely - to the best of my knowledge it's not even a word that means anything.  It's just another arbitrary combination of English letters.  What inherent power could it possibly have?

Clearly, the historical abuses of bigotry, including demeaning words as ethnic insults, can't simply be wiped away.  But we can choose to render them impotent in the future.  We've tried to legislate against the use of such words, considering them to be indicators of hate and bigotry.  Perhaps they are indicators of that, but the use of, say, 'nigger' among African-Americans is clear evidence that it's not the word itself that is the problem.  It's the perceived intent.  Racial slurs have become politically incorrect and public figures who are caught using them are castigated as racists solely on the basis of using a word (as in the "Paula Dean affair").  I see this as a pointless tactic - real racists have no qualms about being politically incorrect, and non-racists are already mostly censoring themselves.  By creating sanctions for using such words, we actually are reinforcing their power over their targets.  Bigots use those words precisely because of the effect they have on the target, after all!

What I would like to see happen is that the whole set of words originally used to reflect contempt and bigotry simply become powerless.  If the words have power over your emotions, you have the capability to rescind that power.  The word that bothered you would cease to have any value to bigots because it would no longer have the effect it once did.

Feel free to use any racial epithet for white people in my presence - it never bothered me and never will, even if its use is intended to be mean-spirited.  I learned from experience that you can truly become immune to such things and defeat the intent.  Relax and let the ugly intent dissipate uselessly in the air.  If the user has bad intentions, you've defeated them by simply not allowing the emotional response.  If the user has no such bad intentions, then there was no problem in the first place. 

Sometimes, I feel ashamed of my gender!

I was born into and raised within a home without violence.  My father was a man who never came close to perpetrating any violence on any of us - he was a man, no doubt, but one without the need to assert his physical dominance.  He worked for a full career to support his family at a time when it was possible to do so without having both partners working to make ends meet.  He was a man of an earlier time, and some of his views about women were becoming seriously outdated even as I was still living at home.  But he loved my mother, my sister, and me, and my parents stood together for the rest of their lives.  Not without conflict, but never with violence.  Never!!  It truly was inconceivable in our household, never even surfacing as an item to be considered.  With the standard naivete of a child, I just assumed that everyone lived in such a household.  I had no notion of how blessed I truly was!!

Imagine my surprise when I found that not everyone, even in my lily-white circle of Chicago-style Republican suburbia, had such good fortune as I.  Behind the seemingly peaceful facades of those suburban homes were some genuinely awful things.  Pedophiles, mental and physical abuse, adultery, drug and alcohol abuse (to say nothing of bigotry), and so on.  Some of those men were leading double lives - serial rapists, polygamists, etc. - even as they masqueraded as upstanding members of the community.  And somehow, we never heard much about such things.  Revelations of this sort were rare - perhaps those alleging such incidents were ignored or considered somehow to have deserved what happened to them.   Perhaps the victims were too ashamed over being victimized to say anything.  Perhaps no one wanted to admit the reality that existed.

I had a lot of difficulty assimilating the activities behind the facades around me and, to this day, I simply cannot begin to imagine what lurks inside such men that compels them to do terrible, hurtful things to other humans.  Unless I'm being deceived, which is always a possibility, it's difficult to imagine most of the men I know to be capable of this evil.  What drives Anthony Weiner to his pathetic sexual pecadillos, despite it clearly being against his own self-interest?  What drove John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton to have sordid affairs even as they sat in the White House?  What drives San Diego's mayor Bob Filner to harass the women around him?  What mental state drives pedophilia and child/spousal abuse?  Over and over, we hear about the despicable deeds of athletes and even coaches, involving physical abuse of all sorts.  It seems rape and abuse (mostly, but not completely, perpetrated by men on women) are constantly in the news today.  Likely this has been going on all along, but now we're hearing more about it, evidently.

Life has, among other things, shattered to pieces any illusions I might once have had about such things.  And when I read about the terrible things that men do, I can only shake my head and feel shame for my gender.  Is our brutal evolutionary heritage so compelling that we simply can't control it?  Are we so vulnerable to our sexual urges that we're completely unable to resist them?  Is our proclivity to violence so utterly compelling, it always is waiting to enter at the drop of a hat?  I just don't believe that.  I think our society pays lip service to detesting that side of men, but in many ways looks the other way.  Boys will be boys, right?

A wonderful friend of mine was fond of saying "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree!"  If we have this continuing problem, then surely we must accept at least some part of the responsibility for what sort of men our boys grow up to be.  Yes, of course everyone is responsible for their personal choices (and the consequences), but those decisions may well be influenced by the tacit approval given to boys (and men) for their evil deeds.   I don't know if it's as easy as telling boys "Don't rape!" but the idea that we do not and will not approve of any violence against women and children (and even other men) would be a great thing for our society to seek to make into a living reality.  Instead of keeping these things hushed up, we should make certain they don't go on hiding behind the facade, unpunished.  I have another friend who grew up in an abusive family and he clearly chose to repudiate that sort of behavior, rather than perpetuating it.  I so much admire him for rejecting his own awful past and not allowing it to overcome his innately gentle and loving character.

There's no way to legislate morality, unfortunately.  We each must confront the choices that life presents us with, and make moral decisions.  This is done only one person at a time.  I can offer no real solutions to this problem, but if our society in any way is tolerating (and thereby implicitly encouraging) men to such acts, then we need to fix that!  One does not demonstrate manhood by acts of abuse and violence!

Target Fixation - A Tornado Danger

There have been a host of videos making the rounds in the past few years showing people evidently so fascinated with tornadoes, they seem not to notice the tornado is coming towards them!  I've shaken my head over such videos - how could people be so stupid?  But a recent conversation with a friend reminded me of an incident on 05 June 1995 near Dougherty, TX when I was so fascinated by what I was seeing in my camcorder viewfinder, I was oblivious to the reality that the tornado was coming right at us!  Thanks to the insistence of my chase partner - my most excellent friend, Al Moller - I was alerted to the situation in plenty of time for us to move to a position well out of the path, and we were able safely to capture some dramatic images and video of the storm.  A similar thing happened to me this year, on 31 May with the El Reno tornado - this time, I was roused from my trance by Tempest Tours tour director Bill Reid.  Again, I was brought back to reality in plenty of time for us to escape.  Perhaps coincidentally, there were a lot of similarities between those storms. 

I mention these incidents in my chasing experience because I believe that anyone can become 'target fixated' - specifically, even me.  Somehow, seeing things unfold through a viewfinder can create a loss of situation awareness.  What we see on our camera screens has a sort of unreality that detaches us from what's actually happening.  Rather than making smug comments about how stupid the people are who fall victim to this, I need to remind myself that I too can behave stupidly when mesmerized by an unfolding tornado event.

The expression 'target fixation' apparently has its roots in WWII, where fighter pilots became so focused on their targets, they literally would fly into the ground!  There can be little doubt that some of the most dramatic tornado videos going around the Internet are a direct result of this, so it behooves all of us to be aware that none of us are immune and we need to look away from our viewfinders from time to time, in order to assess the situation - to ensure we haven't lost our situational awareness to a dangerous extent. 

As a sidebar to this, the ready availability of near real-time radar in a chase vehicle can create something similar to target fixation.  There have been some incidents where people in the vehicles had their heads down staring at their laptop radar displays, without paying much attention to the reality unfolding around them.  When you're in or near the "bear's cage" you need to pop your head up out of your laptop screen frequently and look at what's actually going on around you!  The radar data you're using to make navigational safety decisions may be several minutes old, and your safety margins may be less than what the laptop screen is suggesting.

Part of being a responsible storm chaser is accepting the responsibility for your personal safety!

Once again, for the record

This blog is likely going to piss off some folks, but I feel I have to say it anyway.  Actually, I've already said most of this in other blogs and web essays, so this is somewhat redundant, but I continue to grow weary of the same old mythology being repeated endlessly.

Storm chasers and real scientists (some of whom are also storm chasers, including me) have something in common.  They cling to the myth that they're out in the field to help save lives - that their primary motivation is for the good of society.  They risk life and limb while doing so, as recently demonstrated in the most compelling way with the deaths of Tim and Paul Samaras, and Carl Young, as well as one (or possibly more) non-scientist chaser(s) on 31 May 2013.  It's a fair question for someone to ask what they died for.  Was Tim's really gathering data inside tornadoes in order save lives?  Does that really justify the risks that Tim took to obtain his unprecedented observations?

In some long-term perspective, it might be that somewhere down the road, the data that Tim obtained might help fill a gap that will somehow lead to saving lives.  I certainly can't rule out that possibility.  Tim's observations are so pioneering, at this point in the history of tornado science, it's really hard to say just what impact the data might eventually have.  Saying that his work was directly tied to life-saving is, in my opinion, simply not justified.  His work was tied to a single element of a complicated topic - tornadoes - that might someday lead to an improved understanding of internal tornado dynamics, and so is important in the way that all basic science is important.  We're pushing forward the frontiers of our understanding, certainly.  But a greater understanding of tornado dynamics doesn't do anything to save lives at present.  Why do I make such a statement?

Let me summarize as briefly as possible where I believe we stand when it comes to saving lives.  Since 1925, the fatality rates from tornadoes have been declining pretty steadily.  This is, I believe, the result of several factors, including growing public awareness, the development of infrastructure to spread tornado warnings ahead of dangerous storms, the re-emergence of tornado forecasting in the late 1940s, and probably a number of things I should have mentioned but have not, perhaps out of ignorance but certainly in the interest of brevity.  Tornado science in the USA began to be serious as a direct result of the resumption of tornado forecasting - the basic science originally was being driven by a need to learn more about how to forecast tornadoes.  That basic research now has a life of its own, mostly independent of forecasting needs.  But tornado scientists still feel obligated to say their research, no matter how abstract or unconnected to the real world it might be, is justified because of its potential to save lives.  They may even believe that to be the case - but I don't.

As it stands right now, most tornado fatalities are the result of long-track violent tornadoes that hit populated areas.  For such storms, virtually all of which are associated with supercells, the forecasts and the warnings are already pretty darned good.  Not many people are dying in tornadoes for the lack of adequate warnings.  The warning lead times for long-track violent tornadoes average much larger than for lesser events that are much less likely to cause multiple fatalities.  I've estimated that since the mid-1950s, the NWS outlook/watch/warning system is responsible for saving perhaps 10,000 lives.  Yes, the system isn't perfect and there are many things we can and should do to improve it.  Nevertheless, it's neither the absence of warnings nor the inadequacy of lead times that cause by far the majority of most deaths in tornadoes today!

People still are dying when violent tornadoes hit populated areas because, for one thing, most of the people in the tornado-prone areas have nowhere to go for adequate shelter from such a violent tornado.  Basements are good, but not adequate by themselves, and many American homes have no basements.  Typical frame home construction in the US is pathetically flimsy, even when built to code.  The structural integrity of most homes in the plains is limited to winds of 90 mph or less, when built to code.  Sadly, building codes are widely violated, even in expensive homes, reducing their structural integrity still more.  Flying debris from flimsy homes add to the fatality counts.  More than half of the annual tornado fatalities are now tied to mobile homes.  Poor people can't afford even a flimsy frame home and so mobile homes are a cheap way to have the American dream at an affordable cost - until they're in the path of a tornado!  And many people have done little or nothing to prepare for a tornado;  they don't even have a proper plan for what to do at home or at school/work.

Very few scientists do their research specifically to save lives.  They do it because they love what they do!  It may ultimately be practical, but that's not why they do what they do in the here and now.    Storm chasers don't chase to save lives.  They do it because of a passion for storms!  Tim Samaras was a scientist/engineer and a storm chaser.  I know and understand his real motivations better than most people, not just because we were friends but because I have the same motivations, and I honor his memory in no small part because he was doing what he loved.  Tim wasn't really doing it to save lives.  And neither are virtually all the other scientists and storm chasers.  If what they do might eventually lead to saving lives - and they choose to spend some extra time and effort specifically for doing that - I'm confident they'll have a right to feel good about that.

My friend Al Moller helped me to find ways to give some of what I'd learned in my chasing and in my research back to the National Weather Service and to the many storm spotters whose real role is to save lives.  I do feel proud that I learned how to do that with Al's help and I choose to believe that some lives indeed were spared through our efforts.  But saving lives wasn't why I became a scientist and a storm chaser.  It's time to put that myth to rest and be honest with ourselves and the public!

The 'Crockumentary' Beat Goes On ..

Today, I visited the PBS website and watched the NOVA program "Oklahoma's Deadliest Tornadoes" (also including the record year of 2011 events), and was prepared for what I saw - another 'crockumentary' - a science program containing very little science, rehashing things that have been presented numerous times in other programs, making annoying technical errors, showing typical disaster porn, offering weepy interviews with tornado survivors, and presenting speculation instead of substance.  They did the very same thing with the very first tornado program NOVA did in 1985. The real science concerning the 20 May 2013 tornado is far from complete, so how can this program be anything more than superficial?  Simple answer:  it can't and it isn't.

Gary England is a TV personality, who recently announced his retirement from weather broadcasting to become an executive.  He is not a scientist, has never contributed a single shred of meaningful science, and has no qualifications to discuss the science of severe storms.  Nevertheless, he is featured on the show, and interviewed (for several sound bites).  Why is he on a science program?  Answer:  it wasn't really a science program!

The scientists they interviewed for the show - Howie Bluestein, Chris Weiss, Tim Marshall - must deal with the inevitable characteristic of crockumentaries:  they're only allowed to answer the questions posed by the program producers (Pioneer Productions - I've had several experiences with them, and they are consistently incompetent at producing substantive science shows).  The scientists sometimes say things for the camera that are really errors or sound stupid, at least in part owing to issues with the interview process.  I've experienced it enough to make me feel less inclined to get upset by the things real scientists say on camera in these crockumentaries.  In any case, those real scientists represent a minority of the content of these programs.  Real scientists never get a chance to tell a coherent story about the science, but are only there for a smattering of sound bites in the midst of a flurry of meaningless unscientific fluff.

Such programs do the public a disservice and the NOVA series in particular should be ashamed of these terrible crockumentaries.  It would be helpful for PBS to develop a real tornado science documentary that told a science-oriented narrative:  the history of the science (how did we get to the present status in the science?), the current consensus about the science, the topics that are being investigated actively at present, the tools that have been and are being used currently to advance the science, the application of the abstract science to the practical world, and so on.  If that were to require more than one NOVA episode, then make longer!

But it seems that even PBS is more about ratings and glitzy flash than real substance.  If they are so evidently disinclined to produce a real science program, then you can only imagine how resistant commercial TV is to scientific substance (e.g., the Discovery Channel).  Some people are inclined to tell me to 'chill out' about this sort of crap.  Why get upset about what is apparently never going to change?  My response is that if you care about the science, then it should be presented properly and substantively, instead of as mere 'entertainment' for the sake of ratings.  I care about getting things right, and I always will.  Anyone who suggests I do otherwise can take their advice and shove it!  You have a right to accept superficial, error-filled content if you wish, but don't ask me to take it!

The Arrogance of Believers

An item recently popped up on my FB newsfeed .. an item posted here:

It seems that the relatively young man pictured is prepared to say that "sports nuts" and "money lovers" (among a host of other types of "sinners") are going to be consigned to eternal damnation when judgment day arrives.  He's sublimely confident in his own moral superiority and has decided to try to help you get over your sinful ways and join him in his arrogance.  Is he wise?  Or is he merely a twerp?  I vote for twerp!!

If there's any single trait among believers that riles me up, it's this arrogant condescension - they're saved, and you're damned unless you buy into their beliefs.  They exchange their favorite bible verses on social media, congratulating each other for being on the winning side and, apparently, expecting non-believers to be so inspired as to join them, utterly convinced by their quotations from the late Bronze Age, as translated over many generations.  They have the gall to say, "We'll pray for you." even though it's easy to show that nothing fails like prayer.  Prayer is a way to do nothing (except perhaps offer a sort of placebo effect 'comfort') and yet convince yourself you're doing something effective.  Personally, I see the statement "I'll pray for you." to be insulting, condescending, and very aggravating.

Believers demand that everyone respect their beliefs, even when those beliefs have the identical logical and empirical support as do UFO abduction fanatics and flat Earth diehards.  Apparently, believers think we must quietly accept the putatively inferior role of not having a book written by barbarians thousands of years ago to inform our morality.  They seem quick to ignore (or may be mostly ignorant of) the bible's sanctioned misogyny, genocide, infanticide, bigotry, religious intolerance, and a host of other behaviors that today we would call immoral, to say nothing of the now-irrelevant dietary rules, contractions and logical dilemmas.  And of course, the koran (or whatever spelling is now in vogue) is even more immoral than the bible!  In comparison to islam, christianity is in some sort of mellow old age.  But its past will forever be soaked in blood, and it still embraces fundamentalists quite willing to kill and destroy in the name of christianity.  Oh yes, christians have their terrorists, too.

Is this a meaningful foundation from which to command the lofty heights of ultimate moral superiority?  I think not.  Befuddled by the god virus, believers have the temerity to ask non-believers what keeps them from descending into utter moral degradation!  The very question suggests strongly that the believers are admitting they need both the carrot of entry into eternal bliss and the stick of eternal damnation to keep them from going on immoral rampages.  Apparently, like a common criminal, they can only be moral if the omniscient policeman is ever on the watch, with his hellfires stoked and ready for transgressors.  They can't admit the notion of a valid secular morality, or their lofty position could be forfeit.

But wait - no matter what massive evils you may have engaged in during your life, if you buy into the bullshit of christian belief on your deathbed - bingo!  Instant entrance into all the fruits of eternal happiness!  Hallelujah!!  Any of your victims who may not believe as you do are consigned to the flames and torture forever.  Now there's an important lesson in believer morality!  Reminds me of the deathbed conversion of Darth Vader - apparently all the evil for which he was responsible was wiped off the slate when he killed the Emperor to save his own son!  He may have been pretty evil for a long time - still, that little bit of good in him triumphed at the end!  Now he can pal around in the ghostly Force-world as Anikan Skywalker with Obi-Wan and Yoda for all time.  All is forgiven!  Sound familiar?  That is your morality, believers!  Your arrogance and delusions of moral superiority have as much substance as the mythical Force in a Hollywood movie/morality play.  I'm supposed to respect that?  No way!!

If you can accept the notion that the myths (more often than not inherited from your parents' efforts to indoctrinate you) of your religion are a collection of absolute truths that put you as a believer in a position of ultimate moral superiority - well, you have the right to such beliefs.  But that doesn't make you right and your confidence in your beliefs doesn't give you any right to claim moral superiority.  You need to stop looking down your nose at those who don't swallow your bullshit, or have the gall to prefer a different brand of bullshit.  You're not morally superior as a direct or even indirect consequence of your beliefs and have no call to force your morality on everyone around you.  Your only justification for doing so comes only from within your religion (spreading the god virus), and is not yet sanctioned by the laws of this secular nation.  I don't care what morality guides you or how you choose to behave - unless your beliefs are used to justify doing harm to, or interfering with the lives of, other people.  I respect your rights as Americans but I do not respect your beliefs!

A profound experience from my past

More than 60 years ago, an issue of Collier's magazine initiated a series of articles about the new frontier of space exploration.  You can find the first articles here, and they were a huge influence on my young soul.  To this very day, the images illustrating that article have the power to send me on a trip into that imaginary world, where space exploration was not an item of Cold War propaganda but rather an expression of the soaring spirit of humanity to go beyond the confines of the Earth's surface and see the world through an entirely new vision.

I recall the excitement I felt with these images.  I yearned desperately to be a part of that exploration, to see the Earth from the viewpoint of a space station, to fly over tropical cyclones and look down deep into their eyes, to stare into the blackness of space and see the stars without the distorting effects of the atmosphere, to be a scientist on board and participate in the excitement of discovery from this amazing new perspective.  Alas, reality intrudes, informing me that will never happen.  I would gladly exchange two weeks aboard the International Space Station with whatever allotment of life remains to me.

To this day, I'm haunted by those images from Collier's magazine.  I still have powerful emotional responses to those images, in no small part because they stimulate my memory of my youthful first responses.  How could I not want to be a part of that process illustrated in those pages?  Give me 2 weeks on the International Space Station (ISS) and I could die thereafter a very happy man.  Despite the dangers of the process of getting there, I would eagerly risk my life to lift off on a journey to the ISS that now orbits the Earth more or less as envisioned in the Collier's magazine article (although it's not rotating to provide artificial gravity, for some reason).  Microgravity in orbit has proven to be a major barrier to humans spending much time in orbit - our bodies have evolved for a world with gravity and they deteriorate rapidly in the microgravity of Earth orbit.  This is a complication that wasn't envisioned in 1952.  I'm sure many more exist of which I'm unaware.  It's a hostile environment - being in orbit in space.

Nor did the vision of 1952 truly account for the huge expense of sending humans and their cargo into orbit.  A superpower like the USA is barely capable of paying for such costs and, as it has turned out, we Americans are no longer in the Space Shuttle business, but rather are dependent on the Russians to get our astronauts into space.  There have been no fiscal incentives of substance that can bankroll the cost of space exploration as envisioned in 1952.  Yes, there are many things like GPS technology and communications technology that are dependent on spacecraft - we can afford those, apparently.  But we can't afford paying for the dream of those early visionaries (including, of course, the rehabilitated Nazi, Werner von Braun) who saw a much more peaceful and scientific purpose for space exploration - not space exploitation.  We have lost our zeal for this vision and are no longer willing to support the cost of space exploration as we once did when inspired by the words of JFK (who apparently was using space exploration more as a propaganda tool in the Cold War than as a sincere desire to see that vision become reality).  We made it to the Moon - but killed our dream in the process.  It's damned expensive.  And we haven't been back to the Moon.

There are some private sector efforts to exploit the dream - pay big bucks and we'll give you a couple of orbits on the threshold of space - or invest in an effort to mine the asteroid belt for minerals.  Or whatever.  There's nothing inherently wrong about hoping to capitalize on space exploration, but it simply can't inspire anyone except perhaps those greedy for fiscal gain.  The initial investment is large and the payoff is uncertain.  Will the exploration of space be bankrolled by the corporations?  I doubt it.  They need to see profits on the proverbial "bottom line".

A big part of my emotional response to seeing those Collier's Magazine images again is associated with the nostalgia for my lost youth, I suppose.  The dream is alive, but struggling to deal with the reality of what we have become and how we have chosen to forsake our dreams for the "reality" of this Earth-bound life.  I see the death of my dream in the same way that I can see my own death - inevitable but not something to which I can look forward to with any particular joy.  I hope to live long enough to see the first up-close images of Pluto in 2015.  It's not obvious what new vistas lie ahead, as we seem more and more focused on a very restricted vision.  What vision inspires a 6 or 7-year old today?  I wonder if they can feel the same excitement I did in 1952.

What divides us ...

As I see Facebook posts, I'm constantly reminded of what divides us.  I see posts from my friends that bother me ... a lot.  This makes me sad because I enjoy our friendship despite our different viewpoints.  It seems we see things very differently and that bothers me because I know you and I are not so different on a personal level, even as we seem to disagree on specific political issues.

I know you well enough that I realize your personal perspectives are not the same as mine.  Fine.  I can understand and accept that.  I embrace such differences.  What bothers me is your insistence on certain things that raise red flags with me on a personal level.  We have ideological differences, of course, but must you push those differences into my face?  Must you provoke me to respond in ways that will inevitably divide us?  Is it that important for your personal position that you make me respond to your provocative statements?

Yes, I know that I've made my own provocative postings.  But I try, in the process, to leave open the door that other opinions can exist that differ with mine.  Rather than damning your position, I want you to try to consider, as I have, that opposing opinions can exist and have some substance.  They're not always dictated by ideology but are in fact positions of conscience that are worthy of respect, if not agreement.

If only polarized positions are allowed to exist, there can be no reconciliation, no compromise, no mutual understanding.  When only polar opposites are allowed, that ultimately leads to civil war and damnation of any opposing viewpoints.  We may not agree about everything, but surely we can find some common ground, and from there reach some position other than total condemnation of the "opposing" side.  Can we truly believe that anyone who thinks other than we do is some sort of ideological enemy, worthy only of contempt and, ultimately, elimination?  Is your position so based in reality that anyone who opposes your perspective is worthy only of contempt?  Are you really that confident in what you propose?  Are you willing to let me be the victim of your intolerance?

Surely you must see that that perspective is ultimately fascist and leads only to crimes against humanity?  If you truly feel that confident in your position, then I feel only sadness that you have alienated yourself from what is rational and reasonable.  A rational perspective admits the possibility of error.  I find that especially disturbing in people whom I consider to be friends.  Can you accept that opinions can vary on legitimate bases?  Can you truly tolerate other viewpoints?  Or do you feel that anything other than your viewpoint is anathema and worthy only of contempt and being stamped out under the bootheels of repression and dogma?  Is the comfort of a society where everyone agrees with you worth more than a society where debate is encouraged and different opinions not only tolerated but seen as necesary?

I understand that we see things differently.  I try not to view opposing viewpoints as wholly wrong, but some of them are distinctly problematic to me.  Is it necessary to force me take issue with you?  Must you throw our differences in my face?  Must you characterize my position as totally incorrect and yours as totally correct?  Admission of the possibility of error is an important pre-condition to a rational discussion. Without that, we can have no basis for discussion at all.

An impoverished worldview ...

Been watching some actual science shows on the science channel (Yes, they occasionally still show programs about science there!) and I was reminded of the wonderfully incomplete picture of the natural world that science can claim.  The fact is that science doesn't know all the answers and has never claimed that it does.  Science is well aware of its limitations.  Its professionals seek constantly to change the unknown into the known, on the basic of logic and evidence.  But one of the many things that appealed to me about becoming a scientist was that it was a job with no end.  There would never be a time, in my lifetime, or that of any of my descendants, when we know everything.  It's always a ground floor opportunity!  I'm very much proud of this perspective. 

Scientists are human, and subject to human failings.  Some scientists fall victim to hubris when they have a track record of success.  But this is rare.  Most of us delight in the simple fact that while we don't know everything, we have managed to accomplish a lot in the relatively short time since the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when science rose to unprecedented heights of achievement.  That we can even begin to understand the natural world is a source of great joy for many of us. 

The great works of science are contained in scientific journals and in textbooks.  But the content of those journals and books is constantly changing.  New ideas lead to new understanding all the time.  While by no means a straight line, we have a method of gauging our progress - we have answers to questions heretofore unanswered.  We can solve problems heretofore unsolvable.  We can do things we've heretofore been unable to do.  We can see deeper, farther, and more thoroughly than ever before.  And those achievements automatically lead to new ideas and new directions that will have unpredictable consequences that we now can't even imagine.

With that in mind, consider the position of the fundamentalist believer ... not all believers accept the following thoughts, but many do.  In their view, the world and all its inhabitants are ruled by an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful "skydaddy".  He is everywhere, watching all the time, pulling strings to make things happen according to a plan that, by his design, is incomprehensible to us.  He knows all, and can do anything, apparently including creating himself out of nothing.  He approves of slavery, genocide, misogyny, and a host of rules that reflect the content of an ancient book, written by many authors, that is claimed to be infallible but is subject to various interpretations and laced with contradictions, logical conundrums, and fake history.  If we're to accept this worldview, our future is either one of eternal bliss or eternal torment, both meted out by a deity who loves us so much that he made a blood sacrifice of his son (who actually was himself) to atone for our imperfections - imperfections that he evidently created within us.  This deity is capable of creating a universe but is awfully concerned (pathologically concerned, even) that we should worship him and no other deity.  There is only the one book, sacred in its eternal truths (despite its logical problems and contradictions).  The book can never be revised, superceded, updated, replaced by new information - it is forever static and unchanging because it is the work of the deity himself, through the medium of its late Bronze Age authors.  There is no place in this for reconsideration, for rethinking, for change - it demands only obedience and belief in the absence of tangible evidence or rational thinking.  All of the changes in our worldview as a result of science are simply blasphemy and lies, according to these implacable enemies of logic and evidence.  Our only chance for salvation is to suppress our doubts about religion and pledge an undying telepathic love for the "son" that was sacrificed to atone for our original sins that began with a woman convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge.

If you choose to view your acceptance of religion in terms other than what is described in the bible of your faith, then you may be able to encompass both science and your faith.  But your faith is some sort of personal rationalization between two very different competing worldviews.  One is static and implacable in its calls for obedience and submission, requiring that you accept its claims as absolute truth without any credible evidence.  The other is constantly changing and only asks that you provide logic and evidence to support your claims.  I've made my choice.  Presumably, you've made yours.  You're free in this nation to believe whatever you wish, of course.  Please allow me to do the same, without pushing your beliefs into this secular nation's laws and traditions.  Get your god out of my country!

Catching up ...

Been on something of a hiatus, lately.  Being on travel has meant I really couldn't post much.  It's not over yet, but I figured I'd throw out some thoughts on a variety of topics and see what happens.

Paula Deen

If you've followed my writings, you know I'm neither a racist nor afraid to use politically incorrect words.  Words are just words - they can only offend you if you choose to be offended by them.  "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me!"

Paula Deen has admitted to using the word "nigger" - and is being vilified for it.  Perhaps she is a racist - I don't know her so I can't say for sure one way or another.  But using the word "nigger" is not direct evidence of Paula Deen being a racist.  What is distinctly racist, however, is the blatant discrimination associated with the notion that "African-Americans" can call one another niggers, but European-Americans can't use the word.  A racist is someone who believes (a) the notion of race has biological significance (I don't), and (b) one race is superior to all others (invariably, the race of the racist), and acts upon that belief by discriminating against those of other races, up to and including perpetrating violence on them.  Racism is manifested by deeds, not by words!  If Paula Deen has done things to demonstrate that she's a racist, then the criticism of her is justified.  If not, then she doesn't deserve the label.

Respect

In this secular nation, our Constitution was framed carefully to prevent tyranny by the majority.  The christian majority in this nation has been working ceaselessly for many decades now to undermine those freedoms and to impose their beliefs and practices on all Americans. Yet they whine constantly about being persecuted!  Many christians demand respect for their religion but they bombard all Americans with messages of condescension and disrespect for any other belief, and especially for the absence of belief (atheism).  They push their particular beliefs on everyone, professing love for their fellow humans while at the same time condemning them for non-belief in the tenets of christianity.

If christians demand respect for their religion, then it's hypocritical of them not to offer equal respect for the beliefs and non-beliefs of non-christians.  As fellow Americans, christians share their Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms with every other American, including non-believers.  I honor those rights and will fight for them, but I have no obligation to respect their beliefs.  If you know someone who believes in flying saucers, alien abductions, bigfoot, a flat Earth, an Earth-centered Universe, an Earth that is only 6000 years old, that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, the divinity of royalty, etc., are you obligated to respect those beliefs?  I think not!  I respect their right to have those beliefs but the beliefs, per se, aren't worthy of my respect in any way.  I see christianity as irrational and even dangerous - the "God Virus" disables critical thinking (at least about spiritual topics, where logic and evidence are superceded by faith) and enables otherwise rational people to embrace irrationality.  In today's world, irrationality is potentially a threat to us all.

Reactions to the 2013 Oklahoma tornadoes

This topic might deserve an entire blog post on its own, but - here's a short version of what I think.  The idea that purpose-built shelters should be made mandatory in schools is inappropriate.  What might be more practical and much less expensive than mandating purpose-built tornado shelters in schools would be to have some knowledgeable people review every school's tornado plans and make changes where necessary, perhaps occasionally recommending the construction of shelters if nothing adequate can be developed from the existing structure(s).  I'd like to see building codes in the tornado-prone parts of the US enhanced to the same standards in place in hurricane-prone coastal areas.  And I want the media broadcasters held accountable for what they say to the public in tornado situations.  They're a key component of the integrated warning system, but they're not infallible weather deities and need to reign in their desire for ratings in order to perform their obligations to the public in a responsible way.  A key example is the manifestly false statement that "You need to be below ground to survive this tornado!"

The Meaning of Life

A question that occasionally surfaces in our lives, when we take the time to ponder such things, can be stated many ways, but they all boil down to "What does it all mean?"  This question is particularly poignant to us when we confront our own mortality.  For many people, the obvious answer is their religion, although I suspect that many believers secretly harbor some doubts when it comes to that.  For some, like Monty Python or Douglas Adams, a humorous or even flippant answer serves to dispel the gloom such questions might stimulate.  For the most part, we go on about our life routines without contemplating such deep issues, perhaps because when we do, they can cause us to be a bit frightened - after all, it's difficult to imagine or accept that when we're gone, the world will carry on without us.

So the question deserves some sort of answer.  In what follows, most of which occurred to me several years ago now, I make no claim to have any profound insight or to know for certain that life has any meaning, much less the ideas I'm presenting in this blog.  I'm simply presenting a way to think about this question that provides me with an "answer" - of sorts.

As a observer interested in most aspects of the natural world, it's evident that most living things have no capacity to ponder such questions.  The birds, the ants, the bacteria, and the entire world of plants - none of them are tormented by such thoughts.  They simply have a will to survive - to find sustenance, to escape predators, to give birth to another generation.  Individual animals and plants know about and care nothing about the meaning of their existence.  Existence and species survival are quite enough for them.  All life on Earth, except us, exists simply to survive as part of a complex ecosystem of mutual interdependence.

We, on the other hand, seem compelled to infer that our existence is special, and privileged among other lifeforms on Earth.  Mere survival and participation in the ecosystem just doesn't seem grand enough for us, with our ability to contemplate the Universe in which we exist.  For many, religion reinforces the comforting thought of eternal life beyond our Earthly demise and a purpose defined by a mythical superbeing.  But long ago, I rejected that path as illogical and clearly mythical.

If you disregard the pat answers provided by religion, which I do, then perhaps the ultimate answer is that there is no meaning to life.  Life simply exists to survive and procreate, even for humans.  Should the astronomers prove to be right, then our Earth is destined for some life-destroying fate in a few billion years - if humans haven't left the Earth and colonized other places, or become extinct by then, we will be utterly destroyed.  And the cosmologists suggest that the entire Universe will come to some life-destroying end, so it seems the ultimate extinction of our species is inevitable.  Everything we have built and struggled for will come to nothing in the cold calculus of the indifferent Universe.  Without the myth of eternal life provided by religion, it seems that science offers no solace for our concerns - in the absence of a perpetual survival for humanity, our personal lives can have no meaning whatsoever.

So how do I deal with this apparently meaningless existence?  What keeps me going?  Why should I not kill myself, or indulge in all sorts of immoral behavior?  If nothing matters, why not do these things?  Well, like many other atheists, I don't need religion to have morals.  Here's the deal:  I have been given life by my parents.  I didn't ask for it, but they evidently wanted someone like me in their lives.  I'm thankful and grateful to them for that unrequested gift.  I've found the Earth to be a wondrous place, full of beauty and grandeur, human kindness, wonderful people, and physical pleasures.  Life is mostly a joy to me and for that joy to be maintained, I feel an obligation to make my joy known to others and to seek to bring joy to them, as well.

There are, of course, other ways to provide "meaning" to life - hateful, evil deeds that bring pain and suffering - even death - to others.  For some religious believers, the meaning in their life is provided by immoral acts that inflict agony and death on others.  What a sad life they've built for themselves, filled with anger and pain, perhaps to be terminated prematurely by suicide on the promise of an afterlife that is pure mythology.  One also can achieve an immortality of sorts by extreme evil - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, mass murderers, etc.  They become famous  and that fame provides a sort of meaning for them, it seems, but what a terrible legacy they leave behind.  Not fame, actually, but infamy.

But consider this, before you go on a rampage of immorality.  Every person, even those conceived but not yet born, has an impact on at least some other people.  It's impossible to be alive without having an impact on others.  We often measure fame by how many people know of us - but Arlo Guthrie has said it correctly:  "Famous people are not always important.  Important people are not always famous."  Because we inevitably affect at least those around us, we're important - to them.  Whether or not we (or they) become famous is irrelevant.  If we're all important, each and every one of us, then we should consider just what sort of impact we want to have on those around us.

If we attach value to our acquaintances, friends, and family, then it behooves us to have a positive influence on their lives, to whatever extent it's possible.  We encourage them to pursue their dreams, we praise them for their accomplishments, and we let them know when they do something we believe to be wrong.  We listen to them with attention and try to provide them with comfort when they're sad.  If the world and humanity eventually will vanish, why should we do such things?  Why does it matter?  Because our minds have been programmed by evolution to feel good about ourselves when we do so.  We're social creatures, who can only survive by cooperation with others of ours species.  Cooperation requires morality.  I have morals because it feels right to have them.  Life is better when I feel good than when I feel ashamed and regretful of what I've done.

A life spent doing things you love is dominated by positive feelings, and when we do what we love, we usually do it well enough that it provides something of value to others - even others we may never meet.  Our lives can be inspirational to many people we don't know.  Our work can stimulate others to achievement.  It's so easy to be happy and this can give meaning to my life in a very personal way.  I have no need for fame or glory.  Immortality is beyond my grasp, so it's pointless to seek it.  I'm pretty sure that in 500 or 1000 years, no one will remember I existed, but during the time I've been granted, I know that I've been thrilled to the core with what the world has offered to me, and I've tried my best to give something of that joy and happiness to others.  It simply feels good ... and right.  That's how I find meaning in my time of existence.  For me, it's more than enough.  How about you?

The EF-Scale Ratings Brouhaha

In the wake of upgrades to the EF-scale ratings based on mobile Doppler radar-measured windspeeds, there's been a lot of back and forth on the topic of (a) whether or not to use such measurements at all in the rating process, and (b) if mobile Doppler radar measurements are to be used, just how should this be done?

Item (a) is relevant since the NWS Director some time ago issued a directive to the field offices in which use of mobile Doppler radar windspeed measurements should not be used.  The following is a recent directive from the NWS Director, Dr. Louis Uccellini:

Directive NWSI 10-1604, Post-Storm Data Acquisition, requires us to use the EF scale, which is an impact-based rating assigned to a tornado after extensive investigation of the damage it caused. EF ratings are determined by observed damage rather than measured wind because we have no consistent way to measure wind speed for every tornado that occurs. Adhering to NWSI 10-1604 ensures we continue to use consistent methodology throughout the country for assigning EF ratings.

Tornado research is an exciting and rapidly evolving area of science, and we are able to capture more information about the character of tornadoes than ever before. We are updating Directive NWSI 10-1604 to allow the option of including this new information, when available, in the narrative of tornado summaries. The new policy will allow NWS to document available data that are scientifically valid and reliable without changing the objective and consistent EF assessment. Until the update is finalized into policy, WFOs should continue to follow current policy.

This is essentially a management directive from the agency head to the field offices, and it naturally must be obeyed by the NWS employees, without regard to the scientific merits for such a choice.  Personally, I find it absurd to force the offices to ignore the only "direct" measurements of wind speed in a tornado they're ever likely to have.  I'll have more to say about "direct" shortly.  The EF-Scale was never intended to be a damage scale, but rather is a windspeed scale.  The problem always has been that we have so few actual windspeed observations we must use damage to infer the windspeed - otherwise, only a tiny number of events could be rated.  That was Fujita's contribution to the science of tornadoes, and it has been useful (albeit controversial) ever since it was introduced in 1971.

The "consistency" argument is traditional within the NWS as a reaction to technological innovation.  I could provide numerous examples of the wrong-headedness of this policy, but I'll try to keep this as concise as possible.  For instance, should we degrade the data obtained by WSR-88D radars to that from WSR-57s simply to maintain consistency with the older data sets?  Should we disregard the dual polarity information of the new upgrades to the WSR-88D radars just to maintain consistency with the old versions of the radar?  When something new and exciting comes on line, its capabilities should be embraced by the agency, not rejected as inconsistent with older technology!

Turning to item (b), the primary concern is that the mobile Dopplers "measure" the winds within a sample volume well above the standard 10 m anemometer height, and the EF-Scale is supposed to be based on the virtually non-existent anemometer-based windspeeds at that height for a 3-second gust.  By and large, this is a meaningless definition since anemometer measurements in tornadoes are very, very, very rare - a tornado is an anemometer-hostile environment!  [I need to point out that no absolutely "direct" measurement of wind speed is ever possible.  Anemometer output is electronic signals associated with its rotation rate, which must be calibrated to the wind speed.  Any instrument, even in situ systems, are not direct measurements and entail a lot of issues (sensitivity, accuracy, response time, etc.)  Doppler radar windspeed estimates are not absolutely direct, either of course, and are a form of remote sensing, which is why they can be used in tornadoes.]

So the issue becomes:  what relationship exists between the Doppler radar wind measurements and the actual wind at the 10 m level averaged for three seconds [which is virtually never observed but must be inferred from a highly nonlinear relationship with damage]?  As of this moment, research is underway to try to determine this as unambiguously as possible - it will never be completely unambiguous, of course.  There are reasons to believe that windspeeds  might actually increase at decreasing heights as we go downward from where the Doppler measurements are taken.  The details of that windspeed profile remain to be established and there likely is variability from one tornado to another, or even from time to time during the life cycle of a single tornado.  It's unlikely some single profile would actually be observed at all times for every tornado!  Of course, theoretically, the wind must be zero at a height of 0 m but the winds just above that level must increase quite rapidly with height if they are to become capable of damage at 10 m.

Given that the research is not yet complete (and when is research ever truly complete?), it could be argued that it's premature to use the Doppler measurements and the suggestion to keep them but not use them is at least not entirely ridiculous.  However, all the anxiety about the consistency of the EF-Scale ratings strikes me as rather silly.  The existing record is laced with numerous inconsistencies for a host of reasons.  Denying the value of the most direct measurements of windspeed in tornadoes in order to maintain consistency with an inconsistent data set strikes me as silly.  You can argue we shouldn't introduce yet another source of inconsistency but I say we should take advantage of new techology as soon as possible and not get trapped into the "consistency argument" I discussed earlier.

Many years ago, earthquake intensity was "measured" with a damage scale that had many of the same problems as the original F-Scale.  It eventually was replaced with various objective measures of earthquake intensity and has passed into the dustbin of history.  No one ever suggested degrading the Richter Scale to match the old intensity scale for the sake of "consistency" with the older system.  The extent to which Doppler radar measurements will be able eventually to supercede damage estimate is unknown, but it's likely they never will become capable of being used for every tornado to map out the detailed space-time distribution of windspeeds.  Nor will the relationship of their measurements to the mostly hypothetical 3-second gust from an anemometer at 10 m ever be known perfectly.  But to ignore them or defer their use in EF-Scale assessment just for consistency's sake makes absolutely no sense to me.

When Being Right About a Forecast Brings No Joy

Recent events in Oklahoma have validated something I have been saying for many years.  Specifically, the gridlock to the south and east of the deadly tornado of 31 May 2013 verifies comments I've made many times - escaping a tornado in your vehicle is very much dependent on the specific situation.  You need to be "situation aware" if you choose to attempt to escape a tornado by driving away.  I'm far from the only one who's said such things, of course.

Out in the open country or in a small town, driving away is generally feasible, assuming road conditions permit it.  But in a metropolitan area, this can go tragically wrong.  On 31 May 2013, many people were told a falsehood - that there was no chance they would survive "above ground".  This falsehood owes its origins to Gary England during his coverage of the 03 May 1999 tornado.  His statement, unfortunately, garnered much positive attention and was credited with saving lives.  But the statment is simply not true, as has been demonstrated many times over.  Even in homes hit by the EF4/EF5 winds in EF-4/EF-5 ("violent") tornadoes (Those extreme winds occupy only a tiny fraction of the damage path in such tornadoes.), most people will survive!  Dispensing such misinformation creates unnecessary fear and such fear can induce bad decisions like people in urban areas trying to escape by driving away since they have no underground shelter, rather than seek to shelter in place.  Spreading misinformation via media broadcasts is irresponsible!

The gridlock of 31 May 2013 resulted from a combination of factors, including the recent EF5 killer tornado that struck Moore, OK on 20 May 2013.  But when media weather broadcasters directly or indirectly encourage people living in a metropolitan area to drive away from tornadoes, the potential loss of life skyrockets.  On 10 April 1979, the F4 tornado that struck Wichita Falls, TX killed 44 people, with many of the fatalities occurring in vehicles, including people who left homes that were undamaged, only to drive into situations where they were caught in their cars and killed.

The gridlock of 31 May 2013 didn't involve a tornado tracking over all those immobilized vehicles, but many of us have been worried about such a scenario for a long time.  We have predicted a potential disaster.  As of today, such a disaster hasn't occurred, although the 1979 Wichita Falls event provides a foretaste.  But if we do little or nothing to prevent it, such a tragedy will occur eventually.  Should things work out that way, none of us making this prediction will be exultant!  We may or may not say "I told you so!" but whether we do so or not, none of us will gain any pleasure from saying it.

When I saw the infamous "overpass video" from 26 April 1991 in Kansas, many of us agreed that this video eventually would cause unnecessary deaths in tornadoes.  On 03 May 1999, that prediction came to pass - 3 people died sheltering under overpasses.  We still see people gathering under overpasses to this day, despite the continuing repetition of the message "Do NOT seek shelter under overpasses!" by everyone involved in tornado preparedness.  There will be more such fatalities unless we can change that behavior.  I hope the producers of that video are finding it difficult to live with the consequences of their irresponsibility.  I know it brings me no joy to have made that prediction and live to see it verified.

Because the long-term trends in tornado fatalities have been steadily downward, a level of complacency has emerged.  The evidence seemed to suggest that big numbers of fatalities had become a thing of the past.  Tornado forecasts and various preparedness efforts had removed the potential for tornado disasters in the modern era.  But some of us knew that this complacency was not based on reality.  The threat was still there - the relatively low fatality counts were as much a matter of good luck as they were the result of casualty mitigation efforts.  Survivors often feel they've experienced the worst (e.g., on 03 May 1999), but the reality is that things to come can always be worse!  Then came 2011 and the good luck ran out - the most fatalities since 1925 - the year of the massive death toll associated with the "Tri-State" tornado of 18 March 1925.  Many of us knew something of the sort was still possible, and said so.  Again, being right is no consolation for the huge losses of 2011, mostly on 27 April (Mostly in MS and AL) and 22 May (Joplin, MO).

Another item that causes concern for many of us in severe storm research and operations - large venue event disasters.  Eventually, at some crowded venue for some large entertainment event, a tornado will strike with insufficient warning to evacuate.  With tens of thousands caught essentially in the open, the casualty figures could be enormous.  Some efforts are underway to try to do something about this potential nightmare, but in at least a few cases, it seems nearly impossible to do anything about the threat.  Something of this sort inevitably will happen.  The fact that I can say that, without specifying where and when, of course, doesn't alter the awful feeling that will ensue when this prediction is verified.

No sane person wants tragedies to happen.  Science gives us the capacity to make predictions of disasters, and we can try our best to convince others to take our predictions seriously enough to induce them to seek ways to reduce the disaster potential.  Sadly, we can get out our message, but there's usually little or nothing done to prevent tragedy until people die.  It seems we need a body count if we're to have any hope of changing things for the better.  The only solace we can offer to the victims is that their loss might mean gain for people in the future.   Might.  That prospect is what we cling to when sad events we've predicted come to pass.

Storm Chasing's Day of Infamy

The day some of us have long foreseen has finally come to pass - a tornado has killed storm chasers.  31 May 2013 will live forever in chasing history as a day of infamy.  This has triggered a torrent of op-ed media articles, blog posts, and considerable traffic on social media - including this blog post, of course.

The biggest shock for me is not that it finally happened, but that it happened to my friend Tim Samaras (and his son Paul, as well as colleague Carl Young).  Further, there was another chaser killed by the tornado - Richard Charles Henderson - whom I don't know but suspect that he more closely fit the "profile" of what I expected would be the first chaser killed by a tornado.  More on him shortly.  The particular challenge Tim's death creates for responsible, knowledgeable chasers is obvious:  being a safety-conscious, responsible chaser is no guarantee of safety from the storms.  Tim was killed doing what he loved.  But his activities were inherently more dangerous than those pursued by most responsible chasers.  To achieve his goal of placing "probes" so that tornadoes would pass over them necessarily put him at great risk.  Before Tim's successes, getting tornadoes to hit purpose-built and deployed instrument packages had basically proven to be nearly impossible.  To be successful, you have to take substantially greater risks than most chasers.  Storm chasing is inherently dangerous and none of us are completely immune from that danger.  Including me.

I'm proud to say that I wrote a letter of recommendation on behalf of Tim in his pursuit of his first National Geographic grant.  I gave him the strongest possible recommendation.  He clearly had the technical expertise to do the project, the chasing experience to put him in the right place at the right time, and the level of responsibility to carry out his work in the safest possible fashion, given the high danger of doing so.  Tim was not about fame and fortune - he was dedicated to learning about tornadoes using his engineering expertise to create a practical design to accomplish his goals.  It was a pleasure to be of some help in getting his work started properly.

Tim's death reminds me of David A. Johnston's tragic death - the USGS scientist killed by the Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption in 1980.  The science was robbed of work he would have done by his premature loss, just as we have been robbed of Tim's work way too soon - to say nothing of the loss to his family and friends.  News of that 1980 tragedy affected me deeply and personally at that time, since there were some obvious parallels to the danger associated with storm chasing.  Although I didn't know Johnston in any way prior to hearing about his death, I felt I understood him and his motives.  He was killed pursuing his passion.  His was not a feat of great bravery, but rather was driven by the same need to understand the natural world that some storm chasers have.  I had been intrigued with vulcanology when I was a boy - I could have wound up as a vulcanologist.  That very well could have been me that infamous day in 1980.  I would have wanted to be at the volcano, where the knowledge was to be gained.  This is what we scientists do - it's got nothing to do at all with bravery.  Nothing at all!

Tim's death, like David Johnston's, is an act neither of bravery or bravado.  Tim wasn't killed pursuing fame and fortune, or indulging in an "extreme sport" for the sake of drawing attention to himself.  He was killed doing what he had to do in order to leave the world with a legacy of greater knowledge.  I honor that goal and I honor the lives of Tim and his colleagues.  He brought great credit to storm chasing.  Moreover, there's no shame in becoming the first victim of a tornado while storm chasing.  If it happened to Tim and his team, it could happen to anyone engaging in that danger.   The atmosphere cares nothing about its victims - at most, it's indifferent.

Although the fourth victim was not a science professional, it seems he had some interest in storms and simply blundered into a situation he was unprepared to handle.  He leaves behind mourning family and friends, too.  This sort of victim is what I had anticipated the first deaths by tornado chasing to be - people who had some interest in storms but neither the experience nor the knowledge to avoid the danger if it came upon them suddenly.  Had Richard Charles Henderson been the first and only storm chasing victim of the tornado on 31 May 2013, I wouldn't have been pleased about having my expectations fulfilled.  Instead, I'd have been very unhappy that all the media publicity had finally led to what we all feared it could lead non-professionals to do!  I could not, and will not exult in the death of any chaser, no matter who it might be!

Storm chasing's day of infamy has arrived.  As we mourn our recent losses and gather some solace from thoughts of the good times that we had with the victims, we chasers should draw insight from what this tragedy has revealed.  I had my personal revelation about tornadoes on 24 May 1973 - now a tad more than 40 years ago.  See item #32 here.  Specifically, the spectacular atmospheric phenomena I so much hoped to see could cause great sorrow and pain.  It took me some time afterward to arrive at a moral accommodation with my passion for storms.  First, I recalled that the atmosphere doesn't do my bidding - what happens is not under my control and so I have no responsibility for the storm.  However, I also realized that by being there, and learning about storms, and sharing that knowledge with society, we could mitigate the toll from such events.

I can chase with a clear conscience because I serve a purpose beyond myself in doing so.  How many of today's "extreme" chasers can make such a claim and be credible in doing so?  I hope they'll use this occasion to reconsider just why they chase and decide to spend little or no time focused on themselves, but rather seek to achieve some more worthy goal than self-aggrandizement and boastful bravado.  Let them become more sensitive to the anguish of tornado victims.  Let their cameras be turned away from them and remain on the phenomena they claim to seek.  Let them take pains to give something meaningful back for all their fun and excitement.  Let this day of infamy mean more chasing with safety, responsibility, and courtesy.