With the development of digital computers in the 1940s, the stage was set for numerical weather prediction models based on the equations governing the atmosphere, as envisioned by such meteorological pioneers as Andrie S. Monin, Vilhelm Bjerknes, and Lewis Fry Richardson. Numerical solution of those otherwise unsolvable equations was the catalyst for a revolution in the science of meteorology, and a continuing debate about the role of humans in weather forecasting. Sverre Petterssen and Werner Schwerdtfeger, among others, began to anticipate how computer forecasts could compete with humans in the task of weather forecasting. With the introduction of post-processing methods for turning the gridded variables of a numerical model into actual weather forecasts, Leonard Snellman recognized what he saw as a very real possibility: fully automated public weather forecasting. Snellman coined the term meteorological cancer to describe the eventual demise of human intervention in the forecast process.
The notion of the human-machine "mix" has been around since at least the 1970s. The model developers and those using models as input for objective weather forecasting schemes have steadfastly denied their goal is to replace humans in the forecast process. As I see it, anyone working to develop objective "guidance" for forecasters is basically in the business of replacing humans with their product, whether they admit it or not - or whether or not they even realize that's what a very successful "guidance" product will do. As model forecasts improve - which they have done continuously since they began - the need for humans diminishes. For "ordinary" weather situations, it can be argued that humans already no longer add value to the forecast, even at relatively short range.
The use of numerical models has evolved considerably over those first tentative steps at numerical weather prediction. The models moved rapidly away from crude one-layer models with coarse resolution and very limited physical processes, to today's models based on the so-called "primitive equations" using vastly increased time and space resolution, fully 3-dimensional, and with extensive physical parameterizations, coupled with sophisticated post-processing schemes to convert gridded variables to sensible weather, and even text generation for fully automated forecasting. The role of humans during this process has been one of "gap-filling" - the limitations of numerical models represented gaps where a human forecaster could add value to the automated products. With time, the gaps continue to be filled as the technology of numerical weather prediction evolves. There are fewer and fewer niches where humans have much of a chance to add value. The gaps are disappearing.
I've talked about this before, in many essays that can be found here. Recently, it came to my attention that something interesting is being explored in the UK, whereby forecasters could work with models interactively. Up to now, computer-based forecasts were like the pronouncements of an oracle, and forecasters were faced with either accepting what the models said or rejecting that solution and providing their own alternative forecast by whatever means they had at their disposal. Forecasters have been similar to high priests in the business of interpreting oracular pronouncements. This has not been a truly interactive human-machine relationship.
What I've envisioned for an interactive relationship is that the forecaster would use the model as a tool to test various possible scenarios in a dynamically consistent way. What if the moisture available was actually greater than the initial conditions for the model showed? What if the trough approaching was stronger or approaching more slowly? How would the forecast change? A forecaster educated and trained properly could use the model to test such possibilities intelligently and efficiently, and to see the ramifications of those "what if" scenarios.
As I now see things, if something of this sort is not explored and developed, virtually everything now done by forecasters eventually will be automated. The only debate will be how soon full automation will take place. Meteorological science is spending a considerable effort all time trying to improve the model guidance, by whatever means necessary. What are we doing to refine the role of humans and to improve their performance? Damned little!! Remember: highly accurate guidance = no more need for forecasters! Humans cost much more than computers.
An interactive relationship between model and forecaster would demand a considerably more comprehensive grasp of the science by the forecaster than is now the case. And it would require a much more extensive training program for human forecasters. Today's forecasters need to consider their future - young entry-level forecasters may find themselves out of a job before they're old enough to retire! No one in public weather forecasting is safe from this. NO ONE!!
Thursday, November 13, 2014
The Persistence of Mythology in Science
My personal experiences as a scientist make it clear to me that scientific myths are quite prevalent in science, even among scientists - not just the non-scientific public. What do I mean by a "myth"? - dictionary definitions include:
No, I'm talking here of mythology of the (2) sort. In a very real sense, a great deal of today's science incorporates mythology of type (2). Science (as it is really done) never provides absolute truth. Rather it offers provisional hypotheses that can always be reconsidered and revised, at least in principal. The notion of a scientific consensus is that a majority of scientists accept some provisional hypotheses as being not inconsistent with the observations (data). I've deliberately used the double negative "not inconsistent" rather than its logical equivalent "consistent" in order to shade the interpretation of that consensus science toward being as provisional as possible. New data from new experiments may overturn an earlier well-accepted hypothesis - the history of science is replete with examples: Einstein's relativity, Wegener's continental drift, and so on. By this process, our scientific understanding is ever a work in progress, even when applications of that science are quite successful. There are no sacred truths in science, no dogma beyond question, no concepts that can't be challenged.
This uncertainty is inherent in the scientific process, not some sort of problem that needs to be solved. Any scientific explanation is open to challenge, but challenges that invoke the supernatural (e.g., creationism) are not legitimate challenges in this context. Rather, challenges based on the supernatural are attempts to impose mythology of type (1), an "explanation" entirely outside of the scientific process.
Every new contribution to science, mostly in the form of a paper submitted for publication in a refereed scientific journal, is a challenge to existing scientific understanding, to a greater or lesser degree. A challenge to existing understanding inevitably gores someone's sacred cow. It's natural that this creates controversy between proponents of the existing understand and those who advocate the new provisional hypothesis. This is described by Thomas Kuhn in his controversial book The Nature of Scientific Revolutions as a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts may be minor (of interest only to those specialists in some narrow, specific topic of science) or major (e.g., nonlinear dynamical theory, or chaos theory), affecting many diverse disciplines, and anywhere in between. Some newly-proposed paradigm shifts (not all) are then subjected to further testing and if those tests are not inconsistent with the data, they go on eventually to become a new consensus among scientists. Others fall by the wayside, perhaps for lack of interest or because they fail some new test of their consistency with the data.
In my experience, there are many myths of type (2) in my chosen field. I've written papers to challenge them and to replace those notions with a different understanding that I believe is a better fit to the facts than the older idea. Not all science starts out to be directed at myth-bashing, but if new understanding is revealed, this sets the stage for a clash between old ideas and new ideas. Most people, including scientists, who accept a myth are reluctant to abandon it - myths often have a sort of feel-good comfort about them that their adherents are reluctant to give up, so they do their best to attack the new ideas. That reluctance to accept new evidence might be justified, if the new evidence is flawed in some way, or is being interpreted incorrectly. The trick is to be as objective as possible, and most humans find this difficult to do, often on both sides of a controversy. Such arguments frequently are plagued by confirmation bias: "... the tendency to search for, interpret, or prioritize information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses."
The main point to be made here is that controversy and challenge are inherent in science. If you manage to accomplish anything at all, you will find those who oppose your ideas, sometimes even to the point of being mean-spirited in their critiques of your work. This should not make you uncomfortable, but you should, in fact, embrace their opposition. I tell my students that "Your most vigorous 'enemy' is your best friend!" Such a crucible of intellectual heat is essential in helping you do your best science. Their attacks can reveal weak points that need to be strengthened, and may even show that you're incorrect in at least part of what you're proposing. Try to lose your fear of being wrong - being wrong is a learning opportunity! Your opponent will have done you a favor by showing you're wrong! When your opponent seems to misunderstand what you're saying, you should stop and consider how to express yourself so as not to generate that misunderstanding.
All in all, controversy is good for science and you should understand that without controversy, the science is dead. When all scientists agree about everything, then that science had reached a dead end. Fortunately, this has never happened and likely never will. It's not a sign of some inherent problem with science. Controversy is at the heart of a vibrant, living science!
Where scientists go astray is when they take or offer criticism personally. The topic isn't supposed to be the scientist, it's the science! No matter how mean-spirited an opponent may be, however, don't lower yourself to that level. You're not being threatened. It's your work! And your work isn't beyond question, right? Real humans find it all too easy to feel threatened by opposition, but you can't be a scientist without generating opposition! Be prepared for it. Keep your mind open to new ideas and be willing to admit when your notions need to be abandoned in the face of a superior understanding.
- a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
- a widely held but false belief or idea.
No, I'm talking here of mythology of the (2) sort. In a very real sense, a great deal of today's science incorporates mythology of type (2). Science (as it is really done) never provides absolute truth. Rather it offers provisional hypotheses that can always be reconsidered and revised, at least in principal. The notion of a scientific consensus is that a majority of scientists accept some provisional hypotheses as being not inconsistent with the observations (data). I've deliberately used the double negative "not inconsistent" rather than its logical equivalent "consistent" in order to shade the interpretation of that consensus science toward being as provisional as possible. New data from new experiments may overturn an earlier well-accepted hypothesis - the history of science is replete with examples: Einstein's relativity, Wegener's continental drift, and so on. By this process, our scientific understanding is ever a work in progress, even when applications of that science are quite successful. There are no sacred truths in science, no dogma beyond question, no concepts that can't be challenged.
This uncertainty is inherent in the scientific process, not some sort of problem that needs to be solved. Any scientific explanation is open to challenge, but challenges that invoke the supernatural (e.g., creationism) are not legitimate challenges in this context. Rather, challenges based on the supernatural are attempts to impose mythology of type (1), an "explanation" entirely outside of the scientific process.
Every new contribution to science, mostly in the form of a paper submitted for publication in a refereed scientific journal, is a challenge to existing scientific understanding, to a greater or lesser degree. A challenge to existing understanding inevitably gores someone's sacred cow. It's natural that this creates controversy between proponents of the existing understand and those who advocate the new provisional hypothesis. This is described by Thomas Kuhn in his controversial book The Nature of Scientific Revolutions as a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts may be minor (of interest only to those specialists in some narrow, specific topic of science) or major (e.g., nonlinear dynamical theory, or chaos theory), affecting many diverse disciplines, and anywhere in between. Some newly-proposed paradigm shifts (not all) are then subjected to further testing and if those tests are not inconsistent with the data, they go on eventually to become a new consensus among scientists. Others fall by the wayside, perhaps for lack of interest or because they fail some new test of their consistency with the data.
In my experience, there are many myths of type (2) in my chosen field. I've written papers to challenge them and to replace those notions with a different understanding that I believe is a better fit to the facts than the older idea. Not all science starts out to be directed at myth-bashing, but if new understanding is revealed, this sets the stage for a clash between old ideas and new ideas. Most people, including scientists, who accept a myth are reluctant to abandon it - myths often have a sort of feel-good comfort about them that their adherents are reluctant to give up, so they do their best to attack the new ideas. That reluctance to accept new evidence might be justified, if the new evidence is flawed in some way, or is being interpreted incorrectly. The trick is to be as objective as possible, and most humans find this difficult to do, often on both sides of a controversy. Such arguments frequently are plagued by confirmation bias: "... the tendency to search for, interpret, or prioritize information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses."
The main point to be made here is that controversy and challenge are inherent in science. If you manage to accomplish anything at all, you will find those who oppose your ideas, sometimes even to the point of being mean-spirited in their critiques of your work. This should not make you uncomfortable, but you should, in fact, embrace their opposition. I tell my students that "Your most vigorous 'enemy' is your best friend!" Such a crucible of intellectual heat is essential in helping you do your best science. Their attacks can reveal weak points that need to be strengthened, and may even show that you're incorrect in at least part of what you're proposing. Try to lose your fear of being wrong - being wrong is a learning opportunity! Your opponent will have done you a favor by showing you're wrong! When your opponent seems to misunderstand what you're saying, you should stop and consider how to express yourself so as not to generate that misunderstanding.
All in all, controversy is good for science and you should understand that without controversy, the science is dead. When all scientists agree about everything, then that science had reached a dead end. Fortunately, this has never happened and likely never will. It's not a sign of some inherent problem with science. Controversy is at the heart of a vibrant, living science!
Where scientists go astray is when they take or offer criticism personally. The topic isn't supposed to be the scientist, it's the science! No matter how mean-spirited an opponent may be, however, don't lower yourself to that level. You're not being threatened. It's your work! And your work isn't beyond question, right? Real humans find it all too easy to feel threatened by opposition, but you can't be a scientist without generating opposition! Be prepared for it. Keep your mind open to new ideas and be willing to admit when your notions need to be abandoned in the face of a superior understanding.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Some thoughts as we approach Veteran's Day
Collectively, Americans have come far from the days of the war in Vietnam. Now, it seems we have learned that we can honor the warriors even as we protest the war. My Vietnam experience was not one of a combat soldier. I didn't believe that war was in the best interests of the US, and I have mixed feelings to this day about my service there. I didn't carry a gun in the boonies and shoot at the "enemy", but I did what was asked of me by my nation. No one spat on me when I arrived back in "the world" (as we called the US, then) at 3:00 am in Ft. Lewis, WA. But there was no "welcome home" either. My life was changed by my experiences in the military and I'm still trying to decide the sign of the balance - negative or positive. At least now I do see more positives than when the experience was more recent to me.
There will be an outpouring of thanks tomorrow for all the veterans, as well as for those currently serving. That's a sort of progress, I think. But there are other perspectives on this day of recognition for veterans. Most of the wars on foreign soil we've conducted since WWII haven't involved a real threat to American freedoms at home, so our military personnel have been killing and being killed for causes that are pretty far removed from protection of American freedom. The war fighters, now including both men and women, in the wars since WWII may have been heroic in their battlefield actions on behalf of their brothers/sisters in arms, but that heroism is not based on defending America, per se. These soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen (not all males, anymore) have been carrying out the orders passed on to them by their civilian leaders, irrespective of the rationale on which those orders are based. They're doing their duty as best they can, doing what is asked of them by their nation, doing what they've sworn to do, doing what they're paid to do. In real wars - not the sanitized wars of righteous Americans battling the evil servants of an evil nation often portrayed by political "leaders" - Americans engage in atrocities amounting to war crimes, just as their enemies do. War is an evil, poisonous thing that attacks the morality of all its participants. The victors may put the losers on trial for war crimes, but their hands are never lily-white clean.
I came home from Vietnam with no flashbacks, nightmares, and ingrained fears (all symptoms of PTSD) because I was "in the rear, with the gear". But many did come back from wars on foreign soil with psychological problems, in part because of things they had seen and in which they had participated. I offer no judgment of anyone who may have done immoral things in the military - who carried out unlawful orders. Those participating in incidents like My Lai certainly are responsible for what they did (Nuremberg established that principle), but I'm not in any position to judge them. I don't know what I would have done had I been there - my good fortune in my war was to escape such awful situations. I'm grateful for that. I'm certainly no hero, by any stretch of the imagination. With time, I've mostly come to terms with my service and am not at all ashamed to be a military veteran who participated (in a very minor way) in a war on foreign soil - like my son - and my father before me. In my family, we have answered the call of our nation.
The real crime, in my opinion, is that we ask our young people to engage in wars, not only to defend our liberty, but in many instances to carry out the political will of our government by the application of violent force on our "enemies". We throw them into the cesspool that is a real war and we expect - no, demand - that they come back squeaky clean. Let us all ponder that as we recognize our war fighters for their service on this national holiday! May we eventually come to learn that war is supposed to be a last resort, engaged in to defend ourselves and our allies from those who would harm us - not to be a violent means of imposing our political will on others.
There will be an outpouring of thanks tomorrow for all the veterans, as well as for those currently serving. That's a sort of progress, I think. But there are other perspectives on this day of recognition for veterans. Most of the wars on foreign soil we've conducted since WWII haven't involved a real threat to American freedoms at home, so our military personnel have been killing and being killed for causes that are pretty far removed from protection of American freedom. The war fighters, now including both men and women, in the wars since WWII may have been heroic in their battlefield actions on behalf of their brothers/sisters in arms, but that heroism is not based on defending America, per se. These soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen (not all males, anymore) have been carrying out the orders passed on to them by their civilian leaders, irrespective of the rationale on which those orders are based. They're doing their duty as best they can, doing what is asked of them by their nation, doing what they've sworn to do, doing what they're paid to do. In real wars - not the sanitized wars of righteous Americans battling the evil servants of an evil nation often portrayed by political "leaders" - Americans engage in atrocities amounting to war crimes, just as their enemies do. War is an evil, poisonous thing that attacks the morality of all its participants. The victors may put the losers on trial for war crimes, but their hands are never lily-white clean.
I came home from Vietnam with no flashbacks, nightmares, and ingrained fears (all symptoms of PTSD) because I was "in the rear, with the gear". But many did come back from wars on foreign soil with psychological problems, in part because of things they had seen and in which they had participated. I offer no judgment of anyone who may have done immoral things in the military - who carried out unlawful orders. Those participating in incidents like My Lai certainly are responsible for what they did (Nuremberg established that principle), but I'm not in any position to judge them. I don't know what I would have done had I been there - my good fortune in my war was to escape such awful situations. I'm grateful for that. I'm certainly no hero, by any stretch of the imagination. With time, I've mostly come to terms with my service and am not at all ashamed to be a military veteran who participated (in a very minor way) in a war on foreign soil - like my son - and my father before me. In my family, we have answered the call of our nation.
The real crime, in my opinion, is that we ask our young people to engage in wars, not only to defend our liberty, but in many instances to carry out the political will of our government by the application of violent force on our "enemies". We throw them into the cesspool that is a real war and we expect - no, demand - that they come back squeaky clean. Let us all ponder that as we recognize our war fighters for their service on this national holiday! May we eventually come to learn that war is supposed to be a last resort, engaged in to defend ourselves and our allies from those who would harm us - not to be a violent means of imposing our political will on others.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Losing the War on Terror - more thoughts
I've been reading the book "A Bright Shining Lie" by Pulitzer Prize winning author Neil Sheehan, which reveals the massive extent to which bungling high-level military leadership failed completely to understand the nature of the Vietnamese civil war they inherited from the French after Dien Bien Phu, leading us to (a) support incompetent and mendacious leadership, and (b) supply our foes inadvertently with American weapons and ammunition. Our blundering prosecution of counterinsurgency actually was destined to aid the very enemy we were trying to defeat. Curiously, by reading some history books in my undergraduate days about Vietnam, I concluded this was not a war we could win, short of utterly destroying the "country" we were trying to "save" from the evils of Communism. Even a lowly undergrad kid had a better understanding of Vietnam than our national leadership, it seems.
Although no events in history ever repeat themselves perfectly, there are many points of similarity between our current "War on Terror" (WoT) and the mess we created in Vietnam. For one thing, the war is dividing our nation in ways not entirely dissimilar from how our nation was divided by the Vietnam War. Liberals and conservatives are positioned on similar ground as the populace learns more about the mostly hidden issues in the WoT. We're going down a similar path to defeat, but this time, we're impoverishing ourselves to an unprecedented extent and yielding our open society to a politically expedient sanctioning of giving up our Constitutional rights.
Second, we're again inadvertently supplying arms to our implacable enemies as our leaders (both military and civilian) struggle to come to grips with a war they evidently don't understand. Rather than clashing political ideologies (as in Vietnam), the current war is one of clashing religious sects - sects that have been fighting and killing each other for a long time before we ever became involved. Which side do we back? Sending arms to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in their insurgency against the Soviet invasion backfired on us rather thoroughly - in our fear of Communism, we helped to arm Osama Bil Laden! The "Iraqi Freedom" invasion was based on lies and actually had nothing to do with terrorism, at least until the overthrow of Saddam encouraged eager terrorists to flood into Iraq to fight the "great satan" (i.e., us). We seem entirely to have misunderstood the outcome of the "Arab Spring" revolutions against Mideastern fascist-style secular dictatorships: we apparently believed this was the start of a western-style democracy spreading into the Mideast, when it was clear enough that the islamic majorities eventually would elect islamic theocrats, not liberals supporting minority rights. Which side of those clashes should we support? It seems whomever we supply with arms comes eventually to turn them on us. Is it not in our best interests to stay out of such clashes? Sadly, our obsession with Mideast oil has clouded our vision ...
So after 9/11, after we invaded Afghanistan (supposedly in retaliation for the attack on the World Trade Center), the inevitable reaction of the Afghanis became focused on expelling the infidel invasion (i.e., us). What a surprise!! Evidently, no one had read the history of that war-torn land - like Vietnam, its people have been fighting against and expelling invaders for many centuries. What made us think it would be different for us? Did we really think we could manage to succeed where no one has ever succeeded before? What colossal ignorance and arrogance!
Third, like Vietnam, in the name of operational security ("opsec"), many actions of the WoT are criminal activities being hidden from the American public. As suggested in Sheehan's book, opsec is often the perfect coverup for immoral and/or illegal activities. Why would the Bush administration try to conceal the recently-uncovered discovery of chemical weapons during Operation Iraqi Freedom? What possible purpose could there be to not reveal their existence, when it was WMDs that formed the cornerstone of the government's excuse for that invasion? What sort of machinations have been (and are now) going on behind the cloak of opsec? As the WoT has proceeded, there have been various evil deeds (including torture on captured enemy troops) perpetrated but held mostly under wraps in the name of opsec, or justified by the WoT (e.g., the drone attacks).
Do we give up our freedoms for the sake of an illusory security? Many historical figures in our nation's past (including Benjamin Franklin) have warned against that. Yet we currently are approaching something like a police state, with judicially-sanctioned warrantless searches, pervasive illegal and unjustifiable surveillance of all sorts, widespread police brutality, the militarization of police, etc. That's what fear does.
The irrational fear of terrorism is unwarranted - it's exactly that fear that is the goal of all terrorists. The very name "terrorist" makes that abundantly obvious. Unfortunately, that fear is being exploited for the sake of pursuing an ill-justified war on an ill-defined enemy, with ill-defined goals and unjustified tactics that mostly serve to recruit new terrorists. The war is one that can never end, because the terrorists can't all be killed, so the profits will continue to pour into the corporations supporting the military and security operations. War is profitable for them, and they've learned how to exploit politicians to keep the trillions flowing into their coffers, even as Americans (and innocent civilians) die or are grievously wounded in this senseless war. And we Americans lose more and more of our freedom.
As I've said many times, terrorism is the last resort of an enemy not otherwise capable of imposing their will. It's a clear indication of weakness. We only play to their strengths by perpetuating the WoT and imposing a police state on our own people. Defending ourselves is perfectly justifiable, but not to the point where we must give up the very things we're supposed to be fighting to keep! Not to the point where our tactics are as immoral and illegal as those of our foes. In confronting terror, we have become a state that sanctions terror.
Although no events in history ever repeat themselves perfectly, there are many points of similarity between our current "War on Terror" (WoT) and the mess we created in Vietnam. For one thing, the war is dividing our nation in ways not entirely dissimilar from how our nation was divided by the Vietnam War. Liberals and conservatives are positioned on similar ground as the populace learns more about the mostly hidden issues in the WoT. We're going down a similar path to defeat, but this time, we're impoverishing ourselves to an unprecedented extent and yielding our open society to a politically expedient sanctioning of giving up our Constitutional rights.
Second, we're again inadvertently supplying arms to our implacable enemies as our leaders (both military and civilian) struggle to come to grips with a war they evidently don't understand. Rather than clashing political ideologies (as in Vietnam), the current war is one of clashing religious sects - sects that have been fighting and killing each other for a long time before we ever became involved. Which side do we back? Sending arms to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in their insurgency against the Soviet invasion backfired on us rather thoroughly - in our fear of Communism, we helped to arm Osama Bil Laden! The "Iraqi Freedom" invasion was based on lies and actually had nothing to do with terrorism, at least until the overthrow of Saddam encouraged eager terrorists to flood into Iraq to fight the "great satan" (i.e., us). We seem entirely to have misunderstood the outcome of the "Arab Spring" revolutions against Mideastern fascist-style secular dictatorships: we apparently believed this was the start of a western-style democracy spreading into the Mideast, when it was clear enough that the islamic majorities eventually would elect islamic theocrats, not liberals supporting minority rights. Which side of those clashes should we support? It seems whomever we supply with arms comes eventually to turn them on us. Is it not in our best interests to stay out of such clashes? Sadly, our obsession with Mideast oil has clouded our vision ...
So after 9/11, after we invaded Afghanistan (supposedly in retaliation for the attack on the World Trade Center), the inevitable reaction of the Afghanis became focused on expelling the infidel invasion (i.e., us). What a surprise!! Evidently, no one had read the history of that war-torn land - like Vietnam, its people have been fighting against and expelling invaders for many centuries. What made us think it would be different for us? Did we really think we could manage to succeed where no one has ever succeeded before? What colossal ignorance and arrogance!
Third, like Vietnam, in the name of operational security ("opsec"), many actions of the WoT are criminal activities being hidden from the American public. As suggested in Sheehan's book, opsec is often the perfect coverup for immoral and/or illegal activities. Why would the Bush administration try to conceal the recently-uncovered discovery of chemical weapons during Operation Iraqi Freedom? What possible purpose could there be to not reveal their existence, when it was WMDs that formed the cornerstone of the government's excuse for that invasion? What sort of machinations have been (and are now) going on behind the cloak of opsec? As the WoT has proceeded, there have been various evil deeds (including torture on captured enemy troops) perpetrated but held mostly under wraps in the name of opsec, or justified by the WoT (e.g., the drone attacks).
Do we give up our freedoms for the sake of an illusory security? Many historical figures in our nation's past (including Benjamin Franklin) have warned against that. Yet we currently are approaching something like a police state, with judicially-sanctioned warrantless searches, pervasive illegal and unjustifiable surveillance of all sorts, widespread police brutality, the militarization of police, etc. That's what fear does.
The irrational fear of terrorism is unwarranted - it's exactly that fear that is the goal of all terrorists. The very name "terrorist" makes that abundantly obvious. Unfortunately, that fear is being exploited for the sake of pursuing an ill-justified war on an ill-defined enemy, with ill-defined goals and unjustified tactics that mostly serve to recruit new terrorists. The war is one that can never end, because the terrorists can't all be killed, so the profits will continue to pour into the corporations supporting the military and security operations. War is profitable for them, and they've learned how to exploit politicians to keep the trillions flowing into their coffers, even as Americans (and innocent civilians) die or are grievously wounded in this senseless war. And we Americans lose more and more of our freedom.
As I've said many times, terrorism is the last resort of an enemy not otherwise capable of imposing their will. It's a clear indication of weakness. We only play to their strengths by perpetuating the WoT and imposing a police state on our own people. Defending ourselves is perfectly justifiable, but not to the point where we must give up the very things we're supposed to be fighting to keep! Not to the point where our tactics are as immoral and illegal as those of our foes. In confronting terror, we have become a state that sanctions terror.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
It's not all of us! - or - Everybody does it!
Whenever anyone criticizes a religion these days, many liberals start calling such critics bigots or even racists (Does religion = race? I think not!). Recently a brouhaha on the Bill Maher show prompted one participant to add further "explanation" of his position (note: Sam Harris linked this essay from his own blog page). Bill Maher and Sam Harris were taking the position that islam itself bears responsibility for the violent behavior of some islamic adherents. Ben Affleck and Nicholas Kristoff considered that position to be biased and even bigoted.
My friend, RJ Evans, recently put up this essay that describes the situation as he sees it: if you're willing to believe in a supernatural deity, you can be convinced to commit atrocities. I came to this realization several years ago about "moderate" believers: it's likely that if religious fanatics assume control over a government, moderates will be forced to go along with those violent events, or be killed. They'll be confronted with the inevitable challenge to choose a side, and most of them will cave under that sort of pressure. Perhaps they're fearful for their lives (and those of their family and friends). Perhaps they just can't give up their faith, no matter how evil are the deeds committed in its name. Of course, some might resist a call for atrocities by the fanatics. But history reveals that few will do so when religion and government become one and the same.
We critics of religion argue that this tendency is an inevitable consequence of belief in a supernatural deity. Moderates say, "It's not all of us! They're just a minority of crazies!" That might well be the case at present, but in the past and perhaps again in the future, it could be the law of the land. If you believe that can't happen, I can call that belief into question. What prevents it from happening here and now, as it has in other times and places? In some nations, it's already happening. It's not the "holy" scriptures (the foundation of all religions) that will prevent it. Those writings are the source of the fanaticism that could be inflicted on us all! You can justify nearly anything with quotes from those "sacred" documents, which to my mind renders them useless in a rational discussion. In all such scriptures, the supernatural deity demands complete and total submission, and is willing to kill anyone who doesn't believe as s/he/it commands. Believers are followers, not leaders! For each such religion, then, their deity is the ultimate authority figure, and if you accept that ultimate authority as legitimate, you must be willing to do as commanded. It's inherent in all religions with a super-everything deity. You can pick and choose those parts of the documents you like with your modern, moderate morality, and ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable, but the religion you cling to is precisely the source for evil deeds done in its name. Everyone who commits such deeds also believe they, and they alone, know the true religion of their choice.
"But that's not the true ____ (choose your favorite religion)! My religion is one of peace. And love." So your interpretation of your religion is the only true one, then? What a coincidence that it's your religion that's the true one! Isn't that the reason for the evolution of religions into many, many different subspecies? "It's only we who are the true believers! The rest are abominations, heretics, fanatics!" Can you not see where such a belief leads? Anyone who convinces themselves that they, and only they, are the sole possessors of absolute truth is likely to be a willing soldier on behalf of that truth. When their faith is tested by the fanatics, will they be ready to sign up, or will they refuse, possibly at the cost of their lives? History suggests the answer.
"But everybody does it!" By a curious bit of irony, some moderates also argue that both sides of a religious divide have done evil. They're using the fact that all religions have at one time/place or another, been in control and committed awful deeds. Followers of each religious denomination like to think of themselves as being persecuted - typically by some other religion, but any form of unbelief (including atheism, naturally) will serve their needs. Some claim that religious persecution by atheist regimes is identical to that of theocracies. I maintain there are important differences, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this blog. Religious persecution can be, and has been, cited as justification for violent actions at some point. No matter the reality of a situation, if someone perceives themselves to be victims of persecution, it becomes easy to rationalize violent responses. The fact that one side has committed atrocities is no justification for the other side to do likewise - especially if that other side makes the claim they are adhering to a doctrine of peace and love. Violence always results in more violence, not peace and harmonious co-existence.
Today's moderates evidently are blind to the dangers invariably associated with an absolute authority figure they must follow that wields a sword in defense of absolute truth and seeks to convert all others to the one true religion. The potential for evil deeds flows from such a source in a fearful torrent, whether or not the moderates actually are participating at the moment. If they see any criticism of religion as bigotry or racism, they're being misled by a modern sense of morality that doesn't arise from "sacred" religious documents but is, rather, a humanist morality. A morality not imposed by some mythical supernatural all-everything authority figure who commands obedience on pain of death and rewards the faithful, but rather is based on our sense of shared humanity and empathy for others.
Criticism of religion is not equivalent to bigotry or racism. It's absurd to equate religion with race, for one thing. Race is a myth, for another, and modern religions generally accept believers of any "racial" character. And it's not bigotry to criticize religion - religion is an idea, not a person. A dangerous idea that needs to remain separated from government.
Update:
Just read an essay by Reza Aslan that seems to take a rather elitist stance when it comes to criticizing religion: apparently, Aslan thinks that only dedicated religious scholars are qualified even to discuss religion. He says that "Sam Harris, to me, gives atheism a bad name because he comes from a tradition of atheism that is really disconnected from the titans of intellectual, philosophical atheism who gave birth to the modern world. These were experts in religion who, from a position of expertise, criticized religion. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist; he knows as much about religion as I do about neuroscience."
So being a neuroscientist is a strike against his point of view? This seems rather a self-serving interpretation of religious criticism. Aslan is a religious scholar, so his views automatically trump those of anyone not a religious scholar?
We critics of religion may not have studied ancient scriptures in their original language or delved into ancient history, but neither have most of the followers of those religions. In fact, many of the followers have never even read those documents! There are passages in those scriptures that promote barbaric behavior of all sorts, and those passages are cited frequently to support that behavior. Yes, we non-religious scholar atheists echo the "fundamentalists" (in part) because at least the fundamentalists take a mostly consistent position regarding those scriptures. They don't cry "out of context" every time someone cites a scriptural passage that seems to contradict the myth of a peaceful, loving religion - rather, they embrace it, word for word.
I'm most definitely not in favor of prejudice against islam - I dislike all religions that follow an absolute, all-powerful deity, for reasons I've given in this blog. It just happens that islam is the current world "poster child" for evil deeds done in the name of religion.
My friend, RJ Evans, recently put up this essay that describes the situation as he sees it: if you're willing to believe in a supernatural deity, you can be convinced to commit atrocities. I came to this realization several years ago about "moderate" believers: it's likely that if religious fanatics assume control over a government, moderates will be forced to go along with those violent events, or be killed. They'll be confronted with the inevitable challenge to choose a side, and most of them will cave under that sort of pressure. Perhaps they're fearful for their lives (and those of their family and friends). Perhaps they just can't give up their faith, no matter how evil are the deeds committed in its name. Of course, some might resist a call for atrocities by the fanatics. But history reveals that few will do so when religion and government become one and the same.
We critics of religion argue that this tendency is an inevitable consequence of belief in a supernatural deity. Moderates say, "It's not all of us! They're just a minority of crazies!" That might well be the case at present, but in the past and perhaps again in the future, it could be the law of the land. If you believe that can't happen, I can call that belief into question. What prevents it from happening here and now, as it has in other times and places? In some nations, it's already happening. It's not the "holy" scriptures (the foundation of all religions) that will prevent it. Those writings are the source of the fanaticism that could be inflicted on us all! You can justify nearly anything with quotes from those "sacred" documents, which to my mind renders them useless in a rational discussion. In all such scriptures, the supernatural deity demands complete and total submission, and is willing to kill anyone who doesn't believe as s/he/it commands. Believers are followers, not leaders! For each such religion, then, their deity is the ultimate authority figure, and if you accept that ultimate authority as legitimate, you must be willing to do as commanded. It's inherent in all religions with a super-everything deity. You can pick and choose those parts of the documents you like with your modern, moderate morality, and ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable, but the religion you cling to is precisely the source for evil deeds done in its name. Everyone who commits such deeds also believe they, and they alone, know the true religion of their choice.
"But that's not the true ____ (choose your favorite religion)! My religion is one of peace. And love." So your interpretation of your religion is the only true one, then? What a coincidence that it's your religion that's the true one! Isn't that the reason for the evolution of religions into many, many different subspecies? "It's only we who are the true believers! The rest are abominations, heretics, fanatics!" Can you not see where such a belief leads? Anyone who convinces themselves that they, and only they, are the sole possessors of absolute truth is likely to be a willing soldier on behalf of that truth. When their faith is tested by the fanatics, will they be ready to sign up, or will they refuse, possibly at the cost of their lives? History suggests the answer.
"But everybody does it!" By a curious bit of irony, some moderates also argue that both sides of a religious divide have done evil. They're using the fact that all religions have at one time/place or another, been in control and committed awful deeds. Followers of each religious denomination like to think of themselves as being persecuted - typically by some other religion, but any form of unbelief (including atheism, naturally) will serve their needs. Some claim that religious persecution by atheist regimes is identical to that of theocracies. I maintain there are important differences, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this blog. Religious persecution can be, and has been, cited as justification for violent actions at some point. No matter the reality of a situation, if someone perceives themselves to be victims of persecution, it becomes easy to rationalize violent responses. The fact that one side has committed atrocities is no justification for the other side to do likewise - especially if that other side makes the claim they are adhering to a doctrine of peace and love. Violence always results in more violence, not peace and harmonious co-existence.
Today's moderates evidently are blind to the dangers invariably associated with an absolute authority figure they must follow that wields a sword in defense of absolute truth and seeks to convert all others to the one true religion. The potential for evil deeds flows from such a source in a fearful torrent, whether or not the moderates actually are participating at the moment. If they see any criticism of religion as bigotry or racism, they're being misled by a modern sense of morality that doesn't arise from "sacred" religious documents but is, rather, a humanist morality. A morality not imposed by some mythical supernatural all-everything authority figure who commands obedience on pain of death and rewards the faithful, but rather is based on our sense of shared humanity and empathy for others.
Criticism of religion is not equivalent to bigotry or racism. It's absurd to equate religion with race, for one thing. Race is a myth, for another, and modern religions generally accept believers of any "racial" character. And it's not bigotry to criticize religion - religion is an idea, not a person. A dangerous idea that needs to remain separated from government.
Update:
Just read an essay by Reza Aslan that seems to take a rather elitist stance when it comes to criticizing religion: apparently, Aslan thinks that only dedicated religious scholars are qualified even to discuss religion. He says that "Sam Harris, to me, gives atheism a bad name because he comes from a tradition of atheism that is really disconnected from the titans of intellectual, philosophical atheism who gave birth to the modern world. These were experts in religion who, from a position of expertise, criticized religion. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist; he knows as much about religion as I do about neuroscience."
So being a neuroscientist is a strike against his point of view? This seems rather a self-serving interpretation of religious criticism. Aslan is a religious scholar, so his views automatically trump those of anyone not a religious scholar?
We critics of religion may not have studied ancient scriptures in their original language or delved into ancient history, but neither have most of the followers of those religions. In fact, many of the followers have never even read those documents! There are passages in those scriptures that promote barbaric behavior of all sorts, and those passages are cited frequently to support that behavior. Yes, we non-religious scholar atheists echo the "fundamentalists" (in part) because at least the fundamentalists take a mostly consistent position regarding those scriptures. They don't cry "out of context" every time someone cites a scriptural passage that seems to contradict the myth of a peaceful, loving religion - rather, they embrace it, word for word.
I'm most definitely not in favor of prejudice against islam - I dislike all religions that follow an absolute, all-powerful deity, for reasons I've given in this blog. It just happens that islam is the current world "poster child" for evil deeds done in the name of religion.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Losing the "war" against terrorism - latest installment
A story broke the day before yesterday that a woman in Moore, OK was stabbed and beheaded by a man who had just been fired from his job. This man happened to be a fan of radical islam, so suddenly this nutcase becomes part of the ISIS/ISIL conspiracy to inflict islam and sharia law on the US. Watch out folks, the terrorist sleeper cells are spreading through Mexico and penetrating everywhere. We're all in mortal danger of being beheaded!! Everyone who immigrated from the Middle East is a jihadist ready to inflict islam on us all!!
Get a grip, people. This is simply fear-mongering to keep the expensive and unnecessary "war on terror" going - it's very profitable for the weapons manufacturers, the military, the police, etc. Many politicians love to beat the war drums and portray themselves as strong proponents of the very American rights they've been so instrumental in taking away, all in the name of "protecting" us. The simple fact is that the number of people in the US who have died as a direct result of terrorist acts since 11 September 2001 is quite small. The odds of being killed by a terrorist are now considerably less than being killed by a tornado, for example. More of our troops have died in wars on foreign soil than were killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center (both of them), to say nothing of the physical and mental wounds inflicted on those troops not killed in those wars.
Terrorism is a clear indicator of the military weakness and cultural isolation of the islamic terrorists. If they had the remotest chance of inflicting their religion by a direct military confrontation, history suggests they would do so. After all, that's what the christians tried to do during the crusades. Nowadays, no group in their right minds would succeed in a set piece confrontation with the firepower of the US military. Therefore, the terrorists have torn a page from the US tactics in the Revolutionary War (and used by the Vietnamese communists in the US's Vietnam War). They hit and run, always so as to create maximum horror, and use that fear to intimidate their enemies into massive military expenditures (which are simply a black hole for precious resources: they produce only destruction when used, and are a complete waste when not used), and disruption of their societies by massive, mostly useless "security" measures that destroy the very freedoms we claim separate us from them (the terrorists).
Terrorism will never be defeated by direct military action and attempts to kill off the terrorists. Never! Violence only begets more violence. The way to suppress terrorism is to make it irrelevant. To pay little attention to it. The screaming headlines terrorism generates are among the many goals of the terrorist actions - they spread the paranoia at no cost to the perpetrators, and attract the sort of bizarre folks who are only able to derive a sense of self importance through the pain they inflict on others. By perpetuating fear, we serve the ends of the terrorists, not ourselves. When we give up our rights for the illusion of security (e.g., "security theater" at airports), we serve the ends of the terrorists. When ordinary citizens cringe in fear at every headline and see terrorists everywhere, we serve the ends of the terrorists. When we elect chickenhawk politicians who portray themselves as "strong" against terrorism, and send our troops to fight and die in pointless foreign wars, we serve the ends of the terrorists.
No American should give in to the irrational terror of the jihadists (or other terrorists). Resist the urge for vengeance and go on about your lives without unfounded fear. See terrorism for what it really is: a direct admission of weakness. That's the way to become a "soldier" in the "war" against terrorism. This does not imply a capitulation to the terrorists and there are times when direct action against terrorists is both warranted and effective. If we learn of a terrorist cell, take it down. If a terrorist is running amok in a mall (or whatever), shoot him like a mad dog! Protect and serve. But spreading fear and breeding suspicion are not the answer, nor are invasions of foreign territory with the sole purpose being to eliminate terrorists. These are inevitably counter-productive, as recent history has demonstrated so clearly.
Get a grip, people. This is simply fear-mongering to keep the expensive and unnecessary "war on terror" going - it's very profitable for the weapons manufacturers, the military, the police, etc. Many politicians love to beat the war drums and portray themselves as strong proponents of the very American rights they've been so instrumental in taking away, all in the name of "protecting" us. The simple fact is that the number of people in the US who have died as a direct result of terrorist acts since 11 September 2001 is quite small. The odds of being killed by a terrorist are now considerably less than being killed by a tornado, for example. More of our troops have died in wars on foreign soil than were killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center (both of them), to say nothing of the physical and mental wounds inflicted on those troops not killed in those wars.
Terrorism is a clear indicator of the military weakness and cultural isolation of the islamic terrorists. If they had the remotest chance of inflicting their religion by a direct military confrontation, history suggests they would do so. After all, that's what the christians tried to do during the crusades. Nowadays, no group in their right minds would succeed in a set piece confrontation with the firepower of the US military. Therefore, the terrorists have torn a page from the US tactics in the Revolutionary War (and used by the Vietnamese communists in the US's Vietnam War). They hit and run, always so as to create maximum horror, and use that fear to intimidate their enemies into massive military expenditures (which are simply a black hole for precious resources: they produce only destruction when used, and are a complete waste when not used), and disruption of their societies by massive, mostly useless "security" measures that destroy the very freedoms we claim separate us from them (the terrorists).
Terrorism will never be defeated by direct military action and attempts to kill off the terrorists. Never! Violence only begets more violence. The way to suppress terrorism is to make it irrelevant. To pay little attention to it. The screaming headlines terrorism generates are among the many goals of the terrorist actions - they spread the paranoia at no cost to the perpetrators, and attract the sort of bizarre folks who are only able to derive a sense of self importance through the pain they inflict on others. By perpetuating fear, we serve the ends of the terrorists, not ourselves. When we give up our rights for the illusion of security (e.g., "security theater" at airports), we serve the ends of the terrorists. When ordinary citizens cringe in fear at every headline and see terrorists everywhere, we serve the ends of the terrorists. When we elect chickenhawk politicians who portray themselves as "strong" against terrorism, and send our troops to fight and die in pointless foreign wars, we serve the ends of the terrorists.
No American should give in to the irrational terror of the jihadists (or other terrorists). Resist the urge for vengeance and go on about your lives without unfounded fear. See terrorism for what it really is: a direct admission of weakness. That's the way to become a "soldier" in the "war" against terrorism. This does not imply a capitulation to the terrorists and there are times when direct action against terrorists is both warranted and effective. If we learn of a terrorist cell, take it down. If a terrorist is running amok in a mall (or whatever), shoot him like a mad dog! Protect and serve. But spreading fear and breeding suspicion are not the answer, nor are invasions of foreign territory with the sole purpose being to eliminate terrorists. These are inevitably counter-productive, as recent history has demonstrated so clearly.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Death by cop ... increasing or not?
I readily admit that I'm having trouble grasping the significance, if any, of the recent spate of events where police have beaten or killed people who seemed not to represent a direct and obvious threat to the officers. Of course, I can't say I know for sure the precise circumstances in those situations. What seems to be the industry standard is to put the officer(s) involved on paid administrative leave, pending an internal investigation - with the preponderance of the investigations resulting in exoneration of those officer(s). Not always, but most of the time.
Police are granted special powers over the rest of us, in order that they may carry out their duties to "serve and protect" the people in their jurisdiction. They literally can become judge, jury, and executioner if they deem the situation to require that response. The job they do is difficult and very dangerous - officers lose their lives in the line of duty all too often. The assumption we make is that most of those we select to wield this power are going to be reluctant to exercise that extreme power, reserving it only for those situations that place them (and others) in serious, imminent, and obvious danger. Officers may have only very limited time to consider their course of action in a given situation and it's reasonable that mistakes (fatal ones!) can be made. As with any particular grouping of people, there will be some who are willing to abuse this power granted to them. Again, we assume that the selection process should weed out most of those who would disgrace the trust placed in them, and that if someone reveals such a trait, they would be removed from that duty. An officer who makes too many mistakes in judgment under pressure is not worthy of the responsibility.
Recently, it seems the frequency of such abuse is increasing - or is it? Has the frequency of police abuse of power actually been increasing, or is it just being exaggerated by social media? I wish I knew, but law enforcement agencies seem reluctant to make public any information about the frequency of officer-involved killings and beatings. See here, here, and here, to offer just a few examples of this apparent universal wish to keep secret the information by which we might be able to ascertain any trends in death (and abuse) by cops.
I can't claim the sites I've cited are completely objective - I would posit that absolute, total objectivity doesn't exist in anyone, actually, so it's absurd to use that as a means of dismissing such concerns. I know all the arguments by police apologists and am willing to grant that in some cases, those arguments have some merit. But in many cases, those arguments seem pretty thin to me. Why be so secretive if there's nothing to hide? If it was a mistake, surely they would want to admit that, right? Well, no, we humans often are reluctant to own our errors. And our jobs may depend on not coming clean!
Yesterday, Jon Stewart made a key point in his rant about the Ferguson police shooting of an unarmed black man: can we not hold our police officers to a higher standard than that of a street gang? Ignoring all of the divisive discussion about widespread racial profiling by police (which I deem to be an undeniable fact), the simple reality of many of these police shootings is that even the suspicion of a minor crime on the part of the victim is being used to justify the immediate use of deadly force (or massive beatings). Is it not reasonable to expect that police officers might risk their own lives to avoid the needless taking of another's life? Isn't that what we should expect from those charged with the awesome life and death responsibility to serve and protect us!
As events unfold on the media, we often hear the officer's version of the story as being forced to shoot (or beat) in self-defense, when citizen videos may contradict the officer's version. Not always, of course - some citizen videos confirm what the officer said after the fact, but if that's the norm, then why are police reluctant to wear body cameras, and when they do wear them, why not disclose the video to the public in every case? The fact they prefer to maintain secrecy seems indicative of a cover-up. What's the point of wearing a body camera if the footage is kept purely internal?
My question to the police is a simple one: if the main objective of the legal system you're sworn to uphold is justice for all, then why is exoneration of police officers your main concern in these events? Shouldn't you be seeking to have external investigations in such cases, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest associated with your internal investigations? Are you not remorseful over the taking of another human's life? Or has your typical experience with much less than the best side of humanity resulted in dehumanizing others, to the point where you no longer care about whether they live or die?
We need a system for independent investigations, with full access to all the information available, including body cameras, dashboard cameras, etc. Yes, bad apples exist and they disgrace the many officers who do their duty honorably (and at great personal risk). Should we not be concerned to find those bad apples and remove them from the ranks of those entrusted with such a huge responsibility?
Police are granted special powers over the rest of us, in order that they may carry out their duties to "serve and protect" the people in their jurisdiction. They literally can become judge, jury, and executioner if they deem the situation to require that response. The job they do is difficult and very dangerous - officers lose their lives in the line of duty all too often. The assumption we make is that most of those we select to wield this power are going to be reluctant to exercise that extreme power, reserving it only for those situations that place them (and others) in serious, imminent, and obvious danger. Officers may have only very limited time to consider their course of action in a given situation and it's reasonable that mistakes (fatal ones!) can be made. As with any particular grouping of people, there will be some who are willing to abuse this power granted to them. Again, we assume that the selection process should weed out most of those who would disgrace the trust placed in them, and that if someone reveals such a trait, they would be removed from that duty. An officer who makes too many mistakes in judgment under pressure is not worthy of the responsibility.
Recently, it seems the frequency of such abuse is increasing - or is it? Has the frequency of police abuse of power actually been increasing, or is it just being exaggerated by social media? I wish I knew, but law enforcement agencies seem reluctant to make public any information about the frequency of officer-involved killings and beatings. See here, here, and here, to offer just a few examples of this apparent universal wish to keep secret the information by which we might be able to ascertain any trends in death (and abuse) by cops.
I can't claim the sites I've cited are completely objective - I would posit that absolute, total objectivity doesn't exist in anyone, actually, so it's absurd to use that as a means of dismissing such concerns. I know all the arguments by police apologists and am willing to grant that in some cases, those arguments have some merit. But in many cases, those arguments seem pretty thin to me. Why be so secretive if there's nothing to hide? If it was a mistake, surely they would want to admit that, right? Well, no, we humans often are reluctant to own our errors. And our jobs may depend on not coming clean!
Yesterday, Jon Stewart made a key point in his rant about the Ferguson police shooting of an unarmed black man: can we not hold our police officers to a higher standard than that of a street gang? Ignoring all of the divisive discussion about widespread racial profiling by police (which I deem to be an undeniable fact), the simple reality of many of these police shootings is that even the suspicion of a minor crime on the part of the victim is being used to justify the immediate use of deadly force (or massive beatings). Is it not reasonable to expect that police officers might risk their own lives to avoid the needless taking of another's life? Isn't that what we should expect from those charged with the awesome life and death responsibility to serve and protect us!
As events unfold on the media, we often hear the officer's version of the story as being forced to shoot (or beat) in self-defense, when citizen videos may contradict the officer's version. Not always, of course - some citizen videos confirm what the officer said after the fact, but if that's the norm, then why are police reluctant to wear body cameras, and when they do wear them, why not disclose the video to the public in every case? The fact they prefer to maintain secrecy seems indicative of a cover-up. What's the point of wearing a body camera if the footage is kept purely internal?
My question to the police is a simple one: if the main objective of the legal system you're sworn to uphold is justice for all, then why is exoneration of police officers your main concern in these events? Shouldn't you be seeking to have external investigations in such cases, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest associated with your internal investigations? Are you not remorseful over the taking of another human's life? Or has your typical experience with much less than the best side of humanity resulted in dehumanizing others, to the point where you no longer care about whether they live or die?
We need a system for independent investigations, with full access to all the information available, including body cameras, dashboard cameras, etc. Yes, bad apples exist and they disgrace the many officers who do their duty honorably (and at great personal risk). Should we not be concerned to find those bad apples and remove them from the ranks of those entrusted with such a huge responsibility?
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Addiction, Depression, Suicide - Thoughts on the Suicide of Robin Williams
The untimely death of Robin Williams has forced many of us to ponder some nasty realities. Amidst the numerous tributes and expressions of condolence (as well as the ugly political opportunism by some right-wing folks, including some typically thoughtless and cynical remarks by Rush Limbaugh), there have been some posts that actually offer some worthwhile things to ponder. They have stimulated this blog.
Addiction to various substances (alcohol, addictive drugs) and behaviors (gambling) is an awful thing to experience when it happens to close friends and family. If you haven't experienced this first hand, it's likely very difficult to understand. A friend of mine said his experiences with his family member left him feeling completely powerless to know what to say or do that would cause the addicted person to get off the self-destructive path they're on. Unfortunately, it's not up to us to change their behavior - it's in their hands. They have to want to get over their dependence on the behavior so badly, they'll do whatever it takes. I dislike 12-step programs that say the victims are powerless in the face of their addiction. That's ultimately self-defeating and in many cases is often just an excuse to push religion on addicts. But by no means do I want to diminish the power of addiction. If addicts can't break the grip of their behavior, it's not necessarily a sign of weakness - it's a sign of how powerful the grip of these addictions can be. Solutions to the problem of addictions remain elusive. Why do people feel the need to escape from the world via their addictions? I suppose the reasons are many and varied, but the typical result is that their behavior makes their self-esteem fall still farther in a nasty positive feedback loop that can end in total disaster and death. Friends and family may only be able to look on in horror as this downward spiral unfolds. In my circles, there are several such situations that have gone on and are still ongoing. The friends and family members likely need support as much as the addict!
The war on drugs is just as ineffective and counterproductive as was prohibition of alcohol. As I see it, you can't solve this problem at the supply end. If you remove one supplier, there are dozens willing to take that place, because there's so much profit in it. The path to a solution has to be at the demand end. How can we keep people from abusing certain behaviors that in and of themselves are not necessarily destructive? I wish I knew. I wish someone knew. Rather than waging war on the supply side, and jailing people for their addictions, we should be using our resources to do the research into the challenge of preventing people from self-destructive behaviors on the demand side.
Depression and addiction aren't always associated, but depression apparently often leads to the sort of need to escape reality that addicts seek. Not all those who are depressed are addicts of one type or another, but their suffering is real and often in silence - until it's too late. There are many causes for depression - it can be a fatal illness, sadly. Those suffering from depression in its many forms, including bipolar disorders, desperately need support but may shun the very people who could help the most. Frankly, it's depressing to consider depression! But if we can't face the issue, and it's as widespread as it seems to be, then we won't ever find a solution and tragedy will continue.
And of course, depression often leads to suicide attempts. I've known people who have committed suicide and those of us left behind struggle to understand why someone we know and love would cause us so much pain. We ask "Why?" "What could I have done to prevent this?" Suicide ends the pain for the person who kills him/herself, but the pain goes on and on for the friends and family, who often struggle with their guilt over what they could have or should have done to stop this tragedy. Thus, suicide is a selfish act, but for the person seeking to end their own personal pain, it seems there as if there's no other way for them. There's no point to casting blame on the person who committed the suicide, but it's easy to understand the agony and even anger on the part of those left behind. I don't pretend to know why a popular and successful public figure commits suicide - it seems all too common. Wealth and fame aren't always good things, I guess. Some of those left behind become so depressed over the suicide of a beloved friend or family member, they also give in to their pain. Again, I can't pretend to have any solutions, but suicide always is an occasion on which survivors are forced to reflect.
What's the meaning of a life? I've written about that here and here, but I can't claim any particularly satisfying or deep insight. I know that as I get older, every year I lose more friends and family. What I'm left with is their legacy: the things they accomplished during their lives, the humanity we shared, the joys and sorrows we experienced together. I don't believe in some cosmic purpose for life, so I see the search for that to be futile and not worth the effort. If there's any meaning to our lives, it's how we go about creating a meaning for us as individuals through our friends and family, our professional work, our charity, our giving back for the blessings we have, and so on. If the suicide of Robin Williams is to have any positive outcome, it will be the people moved by it to give something back to humanity for the gift of their lives. I'm convinced we help ourselves the most when we push our "selves" to the back burner and seek to use our abilities and learned skills for the benefit of as many as possible.
Addiction to various substances (alcohol, addictive drugs) and behaviors (gambling) is an awful thing to experience when it happens to close friends and family. If you haven't experienced this first hand, it's likely very difficult to understand. A friend of mine said his experiences with his family member left him feeling completely powerless to know what to say or do that would cause the addicted person to get off the self-destructive path they're on. Unfortunately, it's not up to us to change their behavior - it's in their hands. They have to want to get over their dependence on the behavior so badly, they'll do whatever it takes. I dislike 12-step programs that say the victims are powerless in the face of their addiction. That's ultimately self-defeating and in many cases is often just an excuse to push religion on addicts. But by no means do I want to diminish the power of addiction. If addicts can't break the grip of their behavior, it's not necessarily a sign of weakness - it's a sign of how powerful the grip of these addictions can be. Solutions to the problem of addictions remain elusive. Why do people feel the need to escape from the world via their addictions? I suppose the reasons are many and varied, but the typical result is that their behavior makes their self-esteem fall still farther in a nasty positive feedback loop that can end in total disaster and death. Friends and family may only be able to look on in horror as this downward spiral unfolds. In my circles, there are several such situations that have gone on and are still ongoing. The friends and family members likely need support as much as the addict!
The war on drugs is just as ineffective and counterproductive as was prohibition of alcohol. As I see it, you can't solve this problem at the supply end. If you remove one supplier, there are dozens willing to take that place, because there's so much profit in it. The path to a solution has to be at the demand end. How can we keep people from abusing certain behaviors that in and of themselves are not necessarily destructive? I wish I knew. I wish someone knew. Rather than waging war on the supply side, and jailing people for their addictions, we should be using our resources to do the research into the challenge of preventing people from self-destructive behaviors on the demand side.
Depression and addiction aren't always associated, but depression apparently often leads to the sort of need to escape reality that addicts seek. Not all those who are depressed are addicts of one type or another, but their suffering is real and often in silence - until it's too late. There are many causes for depression - it can be a fatal illness, sadly. Those suffering from depression in its many forms, including bipolar disorders, desperately need support but may shun the very people who could help the most. Frankly, it's depressing to consider depression! But if we can't face the issue, and it's as widespread as it seems to be, then we won't ever find a solution and tragedy will continue.
And of course, depression often leads to suicide attempts. I've known people who have committed suicide and those of us left behind struggle to understand why someone we know and love would cause us so much pain. We ask "Why?" "What could I have done to prevent this?" Suicide ends the pain for the person who kills him/herself, but the pain goes on and on for the friends and family, who often struggle with their guilt over what they could have or should have done to stop this tragedy. Thus, suicide is a selfish act, but for the person seeking to end their own personal pain, it seems there as if there's no other way for them. There's no point to casting blame on the person who committed the suicide, but it's easy to understand the agony and even anger on the part of those left behind. I don't pretend to know why a popular and successful public figure commits suicide - it seems all too common. Wealth and fame aren't always good things, I guess. Some of those left behind become so depressed over the suicide of a beloved friend or family member, they also give in to their pain. Again, I can't pretend to have any solutions, but suicide always is an occasion on which survivors are forced to reflect.
What's the meaning of a life? I've written about that here and here, but I can't claim any particularly satisfying or deep insight. I know that as I get older, every year I lose more friends and family. What I'm left with is their legacy: the things they accomplished during their lives, the humanity we shared, the joys and sorrows we experienced together. I don't believe in some cosmic purpose for life, so I see the search for that to be futile and not worth the effort. If there's any meaning to our lives, it's how we go about creating a meaning for us as individuals through our friends and family, our professional work, our charity, our giving back for the blessings we have, and so on. If the suicide of Robin Williams is to have any positive outcome, it will be the people moved by it to give something back to humanity for the gift of their lives. I'm convinced we help ourselves the most when we push our "selves" to the back burner and seek to use our abilities and learned skills for the benefit of as many as possible.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Still an idealist
The definition of an idealist is "a person who is guided more by ideals than by practical considerations." Although guided by those ideals, I also try to remain aware of practical reality. In particular, the latest installment of the never-ending conflict in the Middle East puts my ideals to the test. Yes, that part of the world has been in violent dispute for thousands of years. Radicals, goaded on by their leaders, employing their personal interpretations of religious faith, have used terrorism, genocide, and war to try to carry out their political ends. I say "try" because it's pretty evident they've all failed to achieve a stable peace through violence. It's widely accepted that it's a form of insanity to keep doing the same things over and over again and expect a different outcome. I'm told by some that it's foolish to hope for the madness that permeates the region (and occasionally spills out on the rest of the world) to end one day, to hope that the warring sects eventually will come to realize the futility of their violence. Well, my message here is that I just can't give up that hope, even though my understanding of this unreal "reality" is that there's no such hope in the near future.
Vengeance for wrongs committed is poor excuse for violence. It can't bring back those killed in previous violence, and whatever "satisfaction" is served by murder in the name of vengeance is ephemeral. Such hatred only serves to destroy the hater from the inside. For believers, consider Leviticus 19:18 ... "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." That message appears over and over in the bible. And in the koran, a similar sentiment can be found "The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof." Of course, in those same documents can be found very contradictory calls (or even demands) for violence against their enemies. Apparently, in Abrahamic religions, vengeance is not entirely left in the hands of their deity - or at least the message in this regard is pretty mixed.
Ironically, the unceasing violence that dominates the Middle East is thoroughly covered with the cloak of "religions of peace". Like politics, the mindset of religion is dominated by unthinking, unquestioning obedience. Religion and politics often are bedfellows in the rape of humanity - not always, of course, but history says this is a common situation. Sometimes politicians see religion for what it is: a means of exercising control over people, and so some politicians seek the suppression of religion since it can be a competitor for that control. But religions typically survive (or even thrive) under political suppression - believers often see themselves as being persecuted for their beliefs, even as believers persecute others for their different beliefs. One need only to look at theocracies or nations dominated by one religion to see the fruits of such tribalism.
Nationalism and religion are simply tribalism made manifest. Tribalism is the ultimate source of "us versus them" - it requires conformity (obedience, control), rewarding those who support the tribe and punishing those who don't. Tribalism simultaneously can induce compassion (reserved for the tribe members) and encourage cruelty (toward members of other tribes). Tribalism is buried deeply in our evolutionary heritage and so has become instinctive. We find comfort in the security of surrounding ourselves with people of similar beliefs and are discomforted in the presence of those who differ from us. It's the wellspring from which bigotry, hatred, and violence flow. That sort of "thinking" likely was helpful to the survival of early humans and so is hard-wired in our brains. But what was helpful in days of primitive human existence is not at all helpful today. Seeking company only of like-minded people nowadays is seen by many as harmful and counter-productive: being challenged by someone of a different mindset is seen by many as a good thing. Interestingly, some of those mouthing such words are, in fact, wholly dismissive of opposing viewpoints. This had led the US to a deeply divided society: liberals in one tribe, conservatives in another, who pour invective on the "enemy" and their leaders. Wake up, folks! This is unproductive tribalism and, given free rein, it ultimately can lead us to violence.
Since I'm an idealist, I must maintain the hope we can overcome this. There are some who proclaim the secular humanist viewpoint that it's unhealthy to surround ourselves with those of entirely like minds. We can think things through and if we do so, it should be possible to suppress our tendency to yield to tribalism, to push back the anger and the bloodlust that tribalism generates to support our wish to impose vengeance on those who differ from us. Our experience tells us that achieving vengeance only hardens the will of the "tribe" upon which we exact vengeance - it creates a never-ending "feud" that can only achieve more of the same. It creates new recruits for our "enemies", ready to sacrifice themselves just to kill us. Surely we can agree not to give in to primitive urges, choosing instead to embrace diversity. Tribalism is no longer the path to human survival. We must work together to solve our many challenges in the modern world, or we risk falling back to a much more brutal form of existence.
Vengeance for wrongs committed is poor excuse for violence. It can't bring back those killed in previous violence, and whatever "satisfaction" is served by murder in the name of vengeance is ephemeral. Such hatred only serves to destroy the hater from the inside. For believers, consider Leviticus 19:18 ... "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." That message appears over and over in the bible. And in the koran, a similar sentiment can be found "The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof." Of course, in those same documents can be found very contradictory calls (or even demands) for violence against their enemies. Apparently, in Abrahamic religions, vengeance is not entirely left in the hands of their deity - or at least the message in this regard is pretty mixed.
Ironically, the unceasing violence that dominates the Middle East is thoroughly covered with the cloak of "religions of peace". Like politics, the mindset of religion is dominated by unthinking, unquestioning obedience. Religion and politics often are bedfellows in the rape of humanity - not always, of course, but history says this is a common situation. Sometimes politicians see religion for what it is: a means of exercising control over people, and so some politicians seek the suppression of religion since it can be a competitor for that control. But religions typically survive (or even thrive) under political suppression - believers often see themselves as being persecuted for their beliefs, even as believers persecute others for their different beliefs. One need only to look at theocracies or nations dominated by one religion to see the fruits of such tribalism.
Nationalism and religion are simply tribalism made manifest. Tribalism is the ultimate source of "us versus them" - it requires conformity (obedience, control), rewarding those who support the tribe and punishing those who don't. Tribalism simultaneously can induce compassion (reserved for the tribe members) and encourage cruelty (toward members of other tribes). Tribalism is buried deeply in our evolutionary heritage and so has become instinctive. We find comfort in the security of surrounding ourselves with people of similar beliefs and are discomforted in the presence of those who differ from us. It's the wellspring from which bigotry, hatred, and violence flow. That sort of "thinking" likely was helpful to the survival of early humans and so is hard-wired in our brains. But what was helpful in days of primitive human existence is not at all helpful today. Seeking company only of like-minded people nowadays is seen by many as harmful and counter-productive: being challenged by someone of a different mindset is seen by many as a good thing. Interestingly, some of those mouthing such words are, in fact, wholly dismissive of opposing viewpoints. This had led the US to a deeply divided society: liberals in one tribe, conservatives in another, who pour invective on the "enemy" and their leaders. Wake up, folks! This is unproductive tribalism and, given free rein, it ultimately can lead us to violence.
Since I'm an idealist, I must maintain the hope we can overcome this. There are some who proclaim the secular humanist viewpoint that it's unhealthy to surround ourselves with those of entirely like minds. We can think things through and if we do so, it should be possible to suppress our tendency to yield to tribalism, to push back the anger and the bloodlust that tribalism generates to support our wish to impose vengeance on those who differ from us. Our experience tells us that achieving vengeance only hardens the will of the "tribe" upon which we exact vengeance - it creates a never-ending "feud" that can only achieve more of the same. It creates new recruits for our "enemies", ready to sacrifice themselves just to kill us. Surely we can agree not to give in to primitive urges, choosing instead to embrace diversity. Tribalism is no longer the path to human survival. We must work together to solve our many challenges in the modern world, or we risk falling back to a much more brutal form of existence.
Friday, July 25, 2014
That very rare commodity-a manager who was a real leader: Ken Crawford
I don't know the date of this photo, but Ken was a lifelong fan of the UT Longhorns. Despite that character flaw, Ken Crawford was a great person!
I first met Ken Crawford when he was a forecaster in the Fort Worth, TX, Weather Forecast Office (WFO), thanks to my late friend and colleague, Al Moller. Ken then moved to Slidell, LA, as a deputy station chief (Deputy Meteorologist-In-Charge); then he became MIC at the Oklahoma City (OKC) Office, and was still there as the MIC when the office moved to Norman (OUN). Subsequently, he left the NWS and became a Professor of Meteorology at OU. At the end of his career, he left the university to be involved with the Korea's national weather service. I've made some short FB posts about this, but this blog gives me a chance to be somewhat more complete. On 23 July 2014, yet another friend and colleague of mine - Dr. Ken Crawford - died. It seems 2014's toll on my friends and family continues.
Although I met him many years earlier, it was when the OKC office moved to OUN (and I followed not long after, when Dr. Bob Maddox became NSSL's Director), that my interactions with Ken really developed significantly for me. Bob and I talked many times about our professional relationship with the Norman WFO across the street from our building on OU's North Campus. We agreed on what to do and so convinced Ken that it would be a good thing if a research meteorologist from NSSL had an office in the OUN WFO. Ken embraced the idea from the start, of course. I was duly ensconced in the OUN WFO and, although as a non-NWS employee I wasn't authorized to issue forecasts, I had daily interactions with the staff. Not only could I get to know and observe the people who actually made the local forecasts, but I could observe the office dynamics. Those were some wonderful years for me and perhaps I might tell that story someday, but not now.
What I saw in Ken as the station chief was something I'd never encountered from a manager before. Let me illustrate that with an anecdote: When I would talk with "outside" people about the great things happening at the OUN WFO, they'd typically say something like, "Well, Ken Crawford has assembled a team of superstars there. What else did you expect?" The thing was, the group of people at the OUN WFO was, at that time, the same team (except for two people who were induced to leave the office) he'd inherited from the previous MIC. Under the previous MIC, the office had been pretty low on the respect bar and Ken had effectively transformed the staff, but used the same people!!
How did he accomplish this? Ken always operated under the principle that he would not be successful as a manager if his staff was not successful in their endeavors. He understood that the people working for him aren't identical robots - they're individuals with particular strengths and weaknesses, so the idea is to use their strengths to contribute to the success of the office and to encourage them to improve in areas where they're weak. Everyone was made to feel like an important member of the team. And so the office prospered, even as his staff prospered (including winning various awards and kudos for their performance). Ken always was supportive of his staff and was willing to "buck the system" should the need arise to help his office be successful. I'm pretty confident that most, if not all of them, would have followed Ken wherever he led them, because it was clear that he reciprocated that respect. How rare that perspective seems to be! What a shame it's so rare - but Ken showed me by his actions how a good manager of people needs to operate.
When I was working in that WFO office of mine, one day it dawned on me that the 35 or so NSSL mesonetwork sites were just rusting away in a warehouse, and that they might be installed as a permanent mesonet for the benefit of the WFO operations. When I brought up my idea to Ken, he then told me of his dream for a statewide mesonet that would have at least one station is every Oklahoma county!! I was floored, but quickly discarded my own paltry idea to get behind Ken's Mesonet project. He honored me by inviting my participation in the Mesonet Advisory Committee, a story all on its own and a time when I was very excited about what we were creating: the Oklahoma Mesonet. Circumstances forced me to give up my participation, but I'm very proud of what we set into motion on its way to becoming a reality.
When Ken became a faculty member, I had the opportunity to be a member of some of his grad student advisory committees. I wasn't surprised to see the same overriding concern Ken showed to help those under his supervision to become successful. Ken was an excellent meteorologist, above all, and that showed in his teaching. Complex topics made sense when Ken explained them! And he sought to challenge students to improve in their weak areas, even as they used their strengths - a familiar theme, implemented in a new context. The panoply of his successful graduates is powerful testimony to the acuity of his vision for what he should do to be successful himself.
His death leaves a hole in our weather community that can't ever be filled, to say nothing of the loss felt by his close friends and family. Yet, those of us who mourn his passing are supported by the gratitude we feel for having been his friend and colleague, or family member. Ken was a very, very special person, who leaves us the gift of his presence and the inheritance of his achievements. It's selfish to dwell on our grief over his absence - he'd want us to move on, capitalizing on what we do well and seeking to improve on what we do poorly, as he showed so many of us how to do in so many ways.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Thoughts on the eve of the Fourth of July
As many of my readers may already know, I was drafted in August of 1969, after completing my first 9 semester hours of coursework toward my doctorate. The occasion prompting the elimination of the student deferment for graduate students was the Vietnam war, and so while I was working as a student trainee for the summer in Kansas City, I received that fateful letter informing me I had to report for duty on such-and-so a date at the Chicago Induction Center.
As early as high school, it became clear to me that the Vietnam mess threatened to suck me in, and that threat had grown with time. I would turn 24 years old that fall and had been reading about Vietnam and its history. Even to a naive college student, it was obvious that our nation was headed toward the disaster that involvement in Vietnam would create for us. The Vietnamese had a rich history of fighting against and repelling foreign invaders, and that was precisely what we were: invaders. I knew that the Vietnam war was a terribly bad choice for our nation, and our American freedoms were at no way at stake in Vietnam.
So, I struggled with the decision of what to do. I had 3 options, basically: (1) go to Vietnam, (2) go to Canada, or (3) go to jail. The latter options both would have destroyed any chance I had for a career as I'd envisioned it. So ... to serve my own ends, I reported for duty and the rest of that adventure followed its course. For many years, I was ashamed of my inability to accept the consequences for resisting what I knew was wrong. I still feel some of that shame, although time has shown me that my time in service had many positive aspects I didn't recognize during my enlistment. For whatever reason, I still fulfilled my obligation to serve my country when called upon. That's not something I'm ashamed of, at least by now. As my father served before me, and my son has served (and still serves), so did I. I feel no honor in my service, but I did serve.
I've never felt a lot of animosity for those who skated out of being in the military during the Vietnam era. No, my animosity is toward those who supported that terrible war, even as they avoided any commitment of their own lives in that very conflict. The chickenhawks. Those unwilling to do what they said others should do.
To me it comes down to is this: my country has not always been right to become involved in foreign wars. In some cases - like WWII and the first Gulf War - that involvement was necessary. This is not the case when it comes to our participation in the so-called "Iraqi Freedom" war and our continuation of the so-called "Enduring Freedom" war in Afghanistan. The latter might have been justified early in its evolution, but nation-building in a foreign land with no democratic traditions is a terrible mistake. Both of these bad decisions pushed through by chickenhawk politicians have proven to be nightmares in the same fashion as our war in Vietnam. Hopeless messes with no logical "end game" - trying to build our brand of freedom in nations where foreign ideas are nearly universally loathed and foreign invaders resisted implacably and without limit on the means. I honor those who stand by their principles and refuse to serve in such a war! We support the principles of American freedom most meaningfully when we protest the wrongs our nation's government perpetrates. When we decline to support those wrongs. When we make sacrifices of conscience to draw attention to those wrongs.
I love the USA and the principles under which it was founded by those who declared our independence from English rule on 04 July 1776. But my love of my nation is not of the "My country - right or wrong" variety. I believe it's our obligation to challenge our government when it commits wrongful acts in our names. Now, with my career in its final years, it's relatively easy for me to protest our involvement in pointless, unnecessary foreign incursions, with a huge cost to our nation - not just in the trillions spent on these debacles, but the cost to our young men and women, and the cost to the Iraqis and Afghanis we have killed. Just like in Vietnam ...
It's the chickenhawks whom I most detest in all of this: the rich and privileged who can use their circumstances, their wealth, and their influence to avoid serving in the wars they support and create. They like to perpetuate the myth that our warfighters are there to preserve American freedom. Bullshit! Our young men and women are fighting for oil and corporate profits and political hegemony and ludicrous ideological notions, not American freedoms! These are unworthy ends, incapable of justifying the tremendous costs inflicted by these ugly conflicts on foreign soil. American blood (to say nothing of others) is being spilled without American freedoms being challenged by those "enemies" living in those lands.
Our founding fathers supported asymmetric warfare against the British to earn our independence. We should be able to relate to those who seek self-determination through asymmetric warfare, even as we may disagree with their principles. Surely we can understand people who resent having a foreign system imposed on them by powerful foreign invaders. It's easy to feel empathy toward those who simply want to be left alone to follow whatever course they choose. It's only when they choose to impose their course on others that we have any viable argument to oppose them - and military intervention is not our only alternative in opposition. We in the USA can't claim the moral high ground when our history is laced with examples of unjustified interventions in the affairs of other nations.
I think the Fourth of July represents a good time to reflect on what we are doing and why we're doing it. Let us mull over what is truly at stake, here and now.
As early as high school, it became clear to me that the Vietnam mess threatened to suck me in, and that threat had grown with time. I would turn 24 years old that fall and had been reading about Vietnam and its history. Even to a naive college student, it was obvious that our nation was headed toward the disaster that involvement in Vietnam would create for us. The Vietnamese had a rich history of fighting against and repelling foreign invaders, and that was precisely what we were: invaders. I knew that the Vietnam war was a terribly bad choice for our nation, and our American freedoms were at no way at stake in Vietnam.
So, I struggled with the decision of what to do. I had 3 options, basically: (1) go to Vietnam, (2) go to Canada, or (3) go to jail. The latter options both would have destroyed any chance I had for a career as I'd envisioned it. So ... to serve my own ends, I reported for duty and the rest of that adventure followed its course. For many years, I was ashamed of my inability to accept the consequences for resisting what I knew was wrong. I still feel some of that shame, although time has shown me that my time in service had many positive aspects I didn't recognize during my enlistment. For whatever reason, I still fulfilled my obligation to serve my country when called upon. That's not something I'm ashamed of, at least by now. As my father served before me, and my son has served (and still serves), so did I. I feel no honor in my service, but I did serve.
I've never felt a lot of animosity for those who skated out of being in the military during the Vietnam era. No, my animosity is toward those who supported that terrible war, even as they avoided any commitment of their own lives in that very conflict. The chickenhawks. Those unwilling to do what they said others should do.
To me it comes down to is this: my country has not always been right to become involved in foreign wars. In some cases - like WWII and the first Gulf War - that involvement was necessary. This is not the case when it comes to our participation in the so-called "Iraqi Freedom" war and our continuation of the so-called "Enduring Freedom" war in Afghanistan. The latter might have been justified early in its evolution, but nation-building in a foreign land with no democratic traditions is a terrible mistake. Both of these bad decisions pushed through by chickenhawk politicians have proven to be nightmares in the same fashion as our war in Vietnam. Hopeless messes with no logical "end game" - trying to build our brand of freedom in nations where foreign ideas are nearly universally loathed and foreign invaders resisted implacably and without limit on the means. I honor those who stand by their principles and refuse to serve in such a war! We support the principles of American freedom most meaningfully when we protest the wrongs our nation's government perpetrates. When we decline to support those wrongs. When we make sacrifices of conscience to draw attention to those wrongs.
I love the USA and the principles under which it was founded by those who declared our independence from English rule on 04 July 1776. But my love of my nation is not of the "My country - right or wrong" variety. I believe it's our obligation to challenge our government when it commits wrongful acts in our names. Now, with my career in its final years, it's relatively easy for me to protest our involvement in pointless, unnecessary foreign incursions, with a huge cost to our nation - not just in the trillions spent on these debacles, but the cost to our young men and women, and the cost to the Iraqis and Afghanis we have killed. Just like in Vietnam ...
It's the chickenhawks whom I most detest in all of this: the rich and privileged who can use their circumstances, their wealth, and their influence to avoid serving in the wars they support and create. They like to perpetuate the myth that our warfighters are there to preserve American freedom. Bullshit! Our young men and women are fighting for oil and corporate profits and political hegemony and ludicrous ideological notions, not American freedoms! These are unworthy ends, incapable of justifying the tremendous costs inflicted by these ugly conflicts on foreign soil. American blood (to say nothing of others) is being spilled without American freedoms being challenged by those "enemies" living in those lands.
Our founding fathers supported asymmetric warfare against the British to earn our independence. We should be able to relate to those who seek self-determination through asymmetric warfare, even as we may disagree with their principles. Surely we can understand people who resent having a foreign system imposed on them by powerful foreign invaders. It's easy to feel empathy toward those who simply want to be left alone to follow whatever course they choose. It's only when they choose to impose their course on others that we have any viable argument to oppose them - and military intervention is not our only alternative in opposition. We in the USA can't claim the moral high ground when our history is laced with examples of unjustified interventions in the affairs of other nations.
I think the Fourth of July represents a good time to reflect on what we are doing and why we're doing it. Let us mull over what is truly at stake, here and now.
Monday, June 30, 2014
A logical dilemma for a scientist
It's widely accepted that the Internet is awash with nonsense, as well as vast amounts of good information. All sorts of wild notions are given "equal time" with other notions supported by genuinely knowledgeable people. A thinking person understands that and behaves accordingly, not accepting any single source and seeking out information to get a balanced perspective. Since the very beginning of my meteorological career, I've been dealing with "crackpots" on a regular basis. First by mail, then by email, and now via social media. There's a fuzzy boundary between truly innovative thinking and outright nonsense, and I've been dealing with "outsiders" (i.e., those who are not severe storm meteorologists) for decades. I have files of interactions with crackpots. An extremely high percentage of the "ideas" from outsiders are pure nonsense, despite the very rare instances when an outsider actually brings something worthwhile to the forefront (e.g., Alfred Wegner - the meteorologist who first proposed "continental drift" - known now as plate tectonics). For every such example, there are hundreds of claims that are pure bullshit.
A recent example is the physicist who wants to erect walls to prevent the "clash of air masses" that purportedly "causes" tornadoes. Recently, he even had to gall to respond to his meteorologist critics by asserting that their physics education was too weak to grasp his brilliant ideas! This, from a physicist without any meteorological background!
Another recent example is found here, where the person clearly doesn't understand the physics of atmospheric gases. He questions fundamental physical laws but provides no meaningful basis for his lack of belief in them. There's no basis for his wild claims about the relative densities of moist versus dry air, inter alia. Thinking "outside the box" is one thing - making counterscientific claims with no substantial evidence is quite another.
The issue that confronts us is this: by responding to these nonsensical ideas, are we not affording them more respect than they deserve? Are we not prolonging the "debate" with the authors of these unscientific notions when we attempt to refute them? Would it not be better simply to ignore this blizzard of balderdash?
Well, for one thing, the public media, including, but not limited to, social media on the Internet - in their technical ignorance - often don't allow these sleeping dogs to lie. Crazy ideas like the "tornado wall" are news!! The media bring them up over and over, incessantly bombarding their readers with questions for which they (i.e., the media) are too ignorant to answer. By leaving the questions hanging, the media lend credence to unscientific notions. Even when they provide quotes from actual practical scientists disputing crackpot hypotheses (not theories! - in science, the word theory has a much different meaning than in colloquial speaking), I suspect many readers are left thinking the crackpots have some legitimacy. Scientific ideas are not settled by debate ... they're either validated by the logic and evidence, or they're not.
Thus, the public is bombarded with crackpot notions like chemtrails and the HAARP conspiracy. The decline of respect for science in this nation, combined with abysmally bad science education (where creationism is taught as legitimate science by some public schools dominated by ignorant christians), is fueled by the barrage of outright bullshit from the media. If we don't respond in some way to this flood from the cesspool of scientific ignorance, we run the risk of seeming to advocate it with our silence.
In my experience, there seems to be no way to get across any sort of nuanced notion by appearing on the regular (non-Internet) media, such as TV or radio. Hence, I have a general policy of not doing interviews for the media - with rare exceptions. My few pitiful sound bites and abbreviated presentations of nuanced notions inevitably are overwhelmed in the crushing cascade of crapola. I always come away from such experiences feeling frustrated with how little I'm allowed to say. There's a constant push to get away from typical scientific thinking, where "shades of gray" are the norm and ideas are presented with many caveats to prevent misunderstanding - toward the black and white world of dumbed-down short sound bites.
Science, as it really is practiced, requires deep, nuanced understanding. Some scientists may be notably effective at presenting scientific ideas to the public (e.g., Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson), and so are given more time to present those ideas. Most of us are hampered by the fact that in order to understand the subtleties, one must have some background in science. If we keep it short to fit the apparent assumed short attention spans of media "consumers", we run the risk of leaving something important out - either for brevity per se, or because we were rushed and forgot to add it to our presentations.
So should we respond ... or not ... to the crackpots? Is it worthwhile to seek opportunities to make presentations to the media? Insofar as the media control the content, I say "No!" But here on the Internet, the medium remains open to all. The crackpots and the scientists are given equal opportunity. I say we scientists should take every opportunity to discredit the crackpots here on the Internet. We can take as much time as we want, and seek to provide evidence and logic to support our attempts to discredit the wild claims of the crackpots.
A recent example is the physicist who wants to erect walls to prevent the "clash of air masses" that purportedly "causes" tornadoes. Recently, he even had to gall to respond to his meteorologist critics by asserting that their physics education was too weak to grasp his brilliant ideas! This, from a physicist without any meteorological background!
Another recent example is found here, where the person clearly doesn't understand the physics of atmospheric gases. He questions fundamental physical laws but provides no meaningful basis for his lack of belief in them. There's no basis for his wild claims about the relative densities of moist versus dry air, inter alia. Thinking "outside the box" is one thing - making counterscientific claims with no substantial evidence is quite another.
The issue that confronts us is this: by responding to these nonsensical ideas, are we not affording them more respect than they deserve? Are we not prolonging the "debate" with the authors of these unscientific notions when we attempt to refute them? Would it not be better simply to ignore this blizzard of balderdash?
Well, for one thing, the public media, including, but not limited to, social media on the Internet - in their technical ignorance - often don't allow these sleeping dogs to lie. Crazy ideas like the "tornado wall" are news!! The media bring them up over and over, incessantly bombarding their readers with questions for which they (i.e., the media) are too ignorant to answer. By leaving the questions hanging, the media lend credence to unscientific notions. Even when they provide quotes from actual practical scientists disputing crackpot hypotheses (not theories! - in science, the word theory has a much different meaning than in colloquial speaking), I suspect many readers are left thinking the crackpots have some legitimacy. Scientific ideas are not settled by debate ... they're either validated by the logic and evidence, or they're not.
Thus, the public is bombarded with crackpot notions like chemtrails and the HAARP conspiracy. The decline of respect for science in this nation, combined with abysmally bad science education (where creationism is taught as legitimate science by some public schools dominated by ignorant christians), is fueled by the barrage of outright bullshit from the media. If we don't respond in some way to this flood from the cesspool of scientific ignorance, we run the risk of seeming to advocate it with our silence.
In my experience, there seems to be no way to get across any sort of nuanced notion by appearing on the regular (non-Internet) media, such as TV or radio. Hence, I have a general policy of not doing interviews for the media - with rare exceptions. My few pitiful sound bites and abbreviated presentations of nuanced notions inevitably are overwhelmed in the crushing cascade of crapola. I always come away from such experiences feeling frustrated with how little I'm allowed to say. There's a constant push to get away from typical scientific thinking, where "shades of gray" are the norm and ideas are presented with many caveats to prevent misunderstanding - toward the black and white world of dumbed-down short sound bites.
Science, as it really is practiced, requires deep, nuanced understanding. Some scientists may be notably effective at presenting scientific ideas to the public (e.g., Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson), and so are given more time to present those ideas. Most of us are hampered by the fact that in order to understand the subtleties, one must have some background in science. If we keep it short to fit the apparent assumed short attention spans of media "consumers", we run the risk of leaving something important out - either for brevity per se, or because we were rushed and forgot to add it to our presentations.
So should we respond ... or not ... to the crackpots? Is it worthwhile to seek opportunities to make presentations to the media? Insofar as the media control the content, I say "No!" But here on the Internet, the medium remains open to all. The crackpots and the scientists are given equal opportunity. I say we scientists should take every opportunity to discredit the crackpots here on the Internet. We can take as much time as we want, and seek to provide evidence and logic to support our attempts to discredit the wild claims of the crackpots.
Friday, June 20, 2014
A look at the 'photojournalism' argument
So I've been seeing lots of arguments to justify photographing of a little girl who subsequently died from injuries in a tornado, and marketing of that photo. Virtually all of them have called attention to other famous shocking images shot by photojournalists and published widely - an RVN army officer executing a Vietcong prisoner, or the firefighter holding a child he'd recovered from the rubble of the OKC bombing [who later died], and so on.
In general, photojournalists believe they have an obligation to record the truth of what they see, without regard to how others might feel about their photographs. To me at least, this is especially so when the truth about a situation is not well-known (starving children in some far-off national civil war, for instance), or even being suppressed (as in many goings-on in Vietnam and other wars). Heartbreaking images of victims of some sort of illegal or horrific activity convey the real-world consequences of those poorly-known or nefarious situations. They can galvanize efforts to pull back either the shroud of cover-up or the shroud of ignorance. I get that, and support it wholeheartedly. I think if put in the sort of situation where unreported or unethical activity was going in front of me, I'd attempt to record for all to see what is not known. I wouldn't deliberately seek out such a situation - I leave that for those who have the stomach for it.
But where is the widespread ignorance of the fatal consequences often associated with violent tornadoes? What government agency is flooding the media with claims that tornadoes do no harm to anyone? Yes, a photojournalist might be compelled to take such an image and it might be within the boundaries of photojournalism's ethics, but is that image needed to right some wrong, or to reveal something heretofore unknown? What useful purpose was served by publishing that image? A photojournalist made some money. A public medium presented it as "news". Anything else?
From a purely technical viewpoint, shooting and marketing the image is likely not illegal in any way. Nevertheless, how does seeing the image make you feel? Did you previously think tornadoes killed people in nice, neat ways? Were you unaware of the threat from tornadoes? Were you misled about tornado hazards by someone or some agency? I'm pretty confident most people don't want to think about what tornadoes do to humans, so perhaps there's at least some reason to reveal the true horror of it. Facing its reality might induce some positive action. But as a viewer of the image, does it make you feel it was the right thing to photograph and publish? I'll leave that to my readers.
After the 03 May 1999 tornado in the OKC area, my wife, who worked in the Norman hospital ER that night, told me about the horrible things she had seen coming in to the ER. I had absolutely no wish for her to have recorded images of that agony for me to look at. I'm pretty confident no one in an ER would allow such a thing! After the Jarrell, TX tornado, I was told that the death toll had been difficult to determine after the event, in part because many of the victims had been cut to pieces by the tornado, making it very challenging to know to whom the scattered bodyparts belonged. Again, I have no wish for anyone to share images of those grisly reminders of the violence of tornadoes.
It's repugnant for me even to think about seeking out and finding horrific injuries inflicted on tornado victims, to say nothing of photographing them and selling the photographs. I leave the seeking part to the trained and experienced first responders, who surely must go through some awful experiences in dealing with tornado victims on the scene. I salute them for their courage and devotion to help people in awful circumstances. I don't want to be within the damage path after a tornado. If I'm nearby, my policy is to leave search and rescue to the professionals, and stay out of their way.
One thing that happens virtually all the time is when bodies are recovered in a fatality situation, they're covered up as soon as possible, until they can be taken to a morgue. Why? Surely it's out of respect for the dead and their families. Would it be respectful to uncover them just so a photojournalist could record that carnage and perhaps win a Pulitzer prize? I definitely think not, and I'm confident most (if not all) first responders would feel the same way. If any photographs were taken before the bodies were covered, it would be for identification purposes, not for a photojournalist to record.
In fact, in the case of the little girl in Nebraska, it's my understanding that first responders on the scene did ask the "photojournalist" to stop photographing the victims, but he refused to stop. He's been backpedaling like mad to make himself out to be some sort of saint. This is a troubled young man and his credentials as a photojournalist are pretty thin, it seems to me, although I don't know enough to be sure. I actually find his story to be a pretty sad one, based on what I have heard second-hand, so I don't want to demonize him, despite my concerns over what he did before and after the event. What I find especially disturbing now are the rationalizations I hear about the duties of photojournalists. I ask again: what would you do, given the situation of being there right after the tornado? Would you take the shot? Would you feel right about being paid for its use?
In my case, no ... and no. Opinions vary, as usual.
In general, photojournalists believe they have an obligation to record the truth of what they see, without regard to how others might feel about their photographs. To me at least, this is especially so when the truth about a situation is not well-known (starving children in some far-off national civil war, for instance), or even being suppressed (as in many goings-on in Vietnam and other wars). Heartbreaking images of victims of some sort of illegal or horrific activity convey the real-world consequences of those poorly-known or nefarious situations. They can galvanize efforts to pull back either the shroud of cover-up or the shroud of ignorance. I get that, and support it wholeheartedly. I think if put in the sort of situation where unreported or unethical activity was going in front of me, I'd attempt to record for all to see what is not known. I wouldn't deliberately seek out such a situation - I leave that for those who have the stomach for it.
But where is the widespread ignorance of the fatal consequences often associated with violent tornadoes? What government agency is flooding the media with claims that tornadoes do no harm to anyone? Yes, a photojournalist might be compelled to take such an image and it might be within the boundaries of photojournalism's ethics, but is that image needed to right some wrong, or to reveal something heretofore unknown? What useful purpose was served by publishing that image? A photojournalist made some money. A public medium presented it as "news". Anything else?
From a purely technical viewpoint, shooting and marketing the image is likely not illegal in any way. Nevertheless, how does seeing the image make you feel? Did you previously think tornadoes killed people in nice, neat ways? Were you unaware of the threat from tornadoes? Were you misled about tornado hazards by someone or some agency? I'm pretty confident most people don't want to think about what tornadoes do to humans, so perhaps there's at least some reason to reveal the true horror of it. Facing its reality might induce some positive action. But as a viewer of the image, does it make you feel it was the right thing to photograph and publish? I'll leave that to my readers.
After the 03 May 1999 tornado in the OKC area, my wife, who worked in the Norman hospital ER that night, told me about the horrible things she had seen coming in to the ER. I had absolutely no wish for her to have recorded images of that agony for me to look at. I'm pretty confident no one in an ER would allow such a thing! After the Jarrell, TX tornado, I was told that the death toll had been difficult to determine after the event, in part because many of the victims had been cut to pieces by the tornado, making it very challenging to know to whom the scattered bodyparts belonged. Again, I have no wish for anyone to share images of those grisly reminders of the violence of tornadoes.
It's repugnant for me even to think about seeking out and finding horrific injuries inflicted on tornado victims, to say nothing of photographing them and selling the photographs. I leave the seeking part to the trained and experienced first responders, who surely must go through some awful experiences in dealing with tornado victims on the scene. I salute them for their courage and devotion to help people in awful circumstances. I don't want to be within the damage path after a tornado. If I'm nearby, my policy is to leave search and rescue to the professionals, and stay out of their way.
One thing that happens virtually all the time is when bodies are recovered in a fatality situation, they're covered up as soon as possible, until they can be taken to a morgue. Why? Surely it's out of respect for the dead and their families. Would it be respectful to uncover them just so a photojournalist could record that carnage and perhaps win a Pulitzer prize? I definitely think not, and I'm confident most (if not all) first responders would feel the same way. If any photographs were taken before the bodies were covered, it would be for identification purposes, not for a photojournalist to record.
In fact, in the case of the little girl in Nebraska, it's my understanding that first responders on the scene did ask the "photojournalist" to stop photographing the victims, but he refused to stop. He's been backpedaling like mad to make himself out to be some sort of saint. This is a troubled young man and his credentials as a photojournalist are pretty thin, it seems to me, although I don't know enough to be sure. I actually find his story to be a pretty sad one, based on what I have heard second-hand, so I don't want to demonize him, despite my concerns over what he did before and after the event. What I find especially disturbing now are the rationalizations I hear about the duties of photojournalists. I ask again: what would you do, given the situation of being there right after the tornado? Would you take the shot? Would you feel right about being paid for its use?
In my case, no ... and no. Opinions vary, as usual.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
The passing of Alan R. Moller
One of my favorite photos of Al, with me in the Fort Worth office of the NWS, showing the Pampa, TX tornado of 08 June 1995, one of our best chases together -- photo by Sam Barricklow
Today, I woke up to the awful news of the death of my long-time chase partner, friend, and colleague, Alan R. Moller. He finally succumbed to early-onset Alzheimer's, taken from us years before his body finally died by that cruel affliction. Seeing his razor-sharp mind and amazing memory stolen from him slowly was difficult to endure: among his last words to me were: "Do I know you?" When I told him we'd been friends for more than 40 years, he said "That's amazing." I realized then that the man I knew was gone, and the end of his body was inevitable. I just couldn't endure seeing him that way again. It was too much for me to take. My deepest gratitude to his DFW-area friends: Sam Barricklow, Carson Eads, Tim Marshall, Ed Cohen, and others. They visited him and helped to brighten his days as the end drew near.
Fortunately, I have the memories of that long-enduring friendship, beginning in 1972, to cherish. The Al Moller I knew was a wonderfully complex person, with an inquisitive, deeply-probing mind, a high-powered thinker on many topics, a person who willingly gave of his time and resources to anyone and everyone who needed them, something of a volatile temper, a wry sense of humor, often impatient but very devoted to his passions: forecasting, storm chasing, drag racing, western art, blues music, photography, and so on. Fortunately, I got the benefit from the extended time spent with him during our chase expeditions. I treasure that time, now. It's how I want to remember him.
When it came to his passions, Al could be very outspoken. This was something of a problem for his efforts to climb the career ladder, but he never, ever sacrificed his principles in order to avoid ruffling bureaucratic feathers. He didn't suffer incompetence or stupidity very willingly. He stayed an idealist all his life.
Anyone lucky enough to have attended one of his public presentations was in for a real treat. At the end of the formal scientific presentation, he would often put on a "bonus" slide show of his favorite images. Not just storms, but photographs of wildflowers, mountain scenery, fall foliage, ... any outdoor landscape he might encounter on his journeys. With each new image on the screen, there would be a moment of stunned silence, followed by a collective sharp intake of breath - the actual definition of what it means to be "breathtaking". His slide shows were famous, and more than worthy of that involuntary reaction. And it wasn't a case of Al bragging about his great photographs, either - he simply wanted to share the beauty he saw with others. No, those slide shows weren't showing off, but passing on the marvelous moments he'd been able to capture. Chasing with Al made me a much better photographer, as a by-product, but he was always the master.
When we chased together, it wasn't uncommon for us to get into loud, vigorous arguments - shouting matches, more or less. These never even came close to becoming a cause for us to give up our friendship. We both were stubborn, opinionated people, but with a deep mutual respect for each other. I appreciated that Al wouldn't hesitate to catch me up if he thought I'd said something stupid or incorrect. These arguments never detracted from the fun we had chasing together - chasing with Al was something I looked forward to during the time of our chasing partnership. Eventually, the time came to end that part of our relationship, but it's something I enjoyed tremendously while it endured!
Al also had a passion for public service, as well as for forecasting and severe storms. This he discussed with me during our chases together. He was profoundly committed to that, doing spotter training talks all over north TX and elsewhere - the best spotter training anyone could have asked for, dispensed with his unique style and panache. It was from him that I learned that a good forecast/warning wasn't the end of the story. There was much that had to happen after a weather forecast product left the forecast office, and Al was unshakably determined to do whatever he could to make those things happen. Al cared about people ... all people ... and did whatever it took to help them, if they needed something.
I'm proud to have known Al - he helped me, too, in many ways. His passing leaves a hole that can never be filled, but he gave us all so much - a legacy any man would be proud of, at the end. His contributions go far beyond those he touched personally - people who never knew Al, but have benefited from his huge legacy without knowing from whom the benefit originated.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Me! Me!! ME!!!
According to Wikipedia, the "Me Generation" is the so-called Baby Boomers - my generation. Of late, it seems to me that our current 20-somethings are strong competitors for that label. As a weather geek, I'm probably not the most knowledgeable about such things, but it sure seems to me that storm chasing is being flooded with a large infusion of folks out there chasing who are, as my friend Gene Moore says, mostly about themselves and not so much about the storms. "Look at me!" they shout. "I'm special because I chase storms [stupidly!]." They seem to care little or nothing about the feelings of storm victims as they cheer a tornado touchdown in their videos. They thumb their noses at the very notion of chasers being responsible to others. They wallow in their uncaring "outlaw" status, joyful as a pig in a mud puddle when they get publicity for their "exploits". "We can do whatever we want to and you can't do anything about it!" And that part's true - I can't.
The dominant theme seems to be to get your video on TV (and/or to post it on Facebook) to show the "adventure" of being caught in a tornado, even when the video is pretty clear evidence in some cases that they're not in the tornado. They often like to claim they're out chasing in order to save lives - which is pretty evidently ludicrous. No, for these egomaniacs, it's all about shouting themselves into fame and fortune, pushing their foolishness onto our TVs and computer screens so that they become renowned - if not famous, then infamous for their foolishness.
In the wake of the tornadoes in Nebraska on yesterday, we have an image spread far and wide by a self-proclaimed photojournalist that purports to show the body of a little girl on a gurney shortly before she died from her injuries. The photojournalist seems quite defensive about some of the reactions to his marketing of this image and, in my view, he has cause to be defensive. I acknowledge that photos may show an unpleasant or even offensive image of a situation, and a photojournalist surely has the job to record those images and to show the rest of us the truth of the situation. I get that. But profiting from this image just seems wrong to me. The event his image records is not about the photojournalist and his reaction to the situation, upon which he seems primarily focused. It's about the little girl, her family, and the town's struggle to cope with a disaster. In my opinion, his proceeds from selling that image should be donated to disaster relief, or to the family of the little girl. He advises others to send relief to the town - should he not do likewise (preferably without fanfare or the cameras rolling as he does it) when he is profiting from their misfortune? Does his success as a photojournalist make him immune to the immorality of personal gain at another's expense?
Also, an arrogant private sector weather forecaster has taken the same opportunity to promote himself and his services, heaping scorn on the forecasts and warnings by the National Weather Service (NWS). Private sector forecasters have a proclivity for this, especially when they actually appear on the air, promoting themselves rather than focusing on their statutory obligation to disseminate weather information. Disrespecting forecast competition isn't limited to other private sector forecasters - they often spread their net of scorn to include the NWS, whose ability to respond is basically zero, regardless of the truth or falsehood of such criticism. No, the private sector is blatantly self-promotional, and is evidently willing to use every situation to promote themselves and disparage their "competition". They are the quintessential proponents of themselves. Rarely do they subject their own products to rigorous verification, and even more infrequently do they publish their verification statistics for all to see. "I'm great! Take my word for it!" they proclaim. A few are exceptions to this typical behavior - more power to them. But self-serving promotion of themselves is rampant and unethical, in my view. The American Meteorological Society should be much more aggressive in pursuing ethical violations by its members, it seems to me.
Self-promotion seems pervasive in today's world. It's surely not limited to my generation. And it seems to be increasing, at least as it relates to severe weather. It surely can be argued that this blog could be interpreted as a form of self-promotion, but I think rather than seeking fame and fortune, I'm putting my thoughts out as catalyst for discussion - not lining my pockets with cash or attempting to gain fame as a consequence.
The dominant theme seems to be to get your video on TV (and/or to post it on Facebook) to show the "adventure" of being caught in a tornado, even when the video is pretty clear evidence in some cases that they're not in the tornado. They often like to claim they're out chasing in order to save lives - which is pretty evidently ludicrous. No, for these egomaniacs, it's all about shouting themselves into fame and fortune, pushing their foolishness onto our TVs and computer screens so that they become renowned - if not famous, then infamous for their foolishness.
In the wake of the tornadoes in Nebraska on yesterday, we have an image spread far and wide by a self-proclaimed photojournalist that purports to show the body of a little girl on a gurney shortly before she died from her injuries. The photojournalist seems quite defensive about some of the reactions to his marketing of this image and, in my view, he has cause to be defensive. I acknowledge that photos may show an unpleasant or even offensive image of a situation, and a photojournalist surely has the job to record those images and to show the rest of us the truth of the situation. I get that. But profiting from this image just seems wrong to me. The event his image records is not about the photojournalist and his reaction to the situation, upon which he seems primarily focused. It's about the little girl, her family, and the town's struggle to cope with a disaster. In my opinion, his proceeds from selling that image should be donated to disaster relief, or to the family of the little girl. He advises others to send relief to the town - should he not do likewise (preferably without fanfare or the cameras rolling as he does it) when he is profiting from their misfortune? Does his success as a photojournalist make him immune to the immorality of personal gain at another's expense?
Also, an arrogant private sector weather forecaster has taken the same opportunity to promote himself and his services, heaping scorn on the forecasts and warnings by the National Weather Service (NWS). Private sector forecasters have a proclivity for this, especially when they actually appear on the air, promoting themselves rather than focusing on their statutory obligation to disseminate weather information. Disrespecting forecast competition isn't limited to other private sector forecasters - they often spread their net of scorn to include the NWS, whose ability to respond is basically zero, regardless of the truth or falsehood of such criticism. No, the private sector is blatantly self-promotional, and is evidently willing to use every situation to promote themselves and disparage their "competition". They are the quintessential proponents of themselves. Rarely do they subject their own products to rigorous verification, and even more infrequently do they publish their verification statistics for all to see. "I'm great! Take my word for it!" they proclaim. A few are exceptions to this typical behavior - more power to them. But self-serving promotion of themselves is rampant and unethical, in my view. The American Meteorological Society should be much more aggressive in pursuing ethical violations by its members, it seems to me.
Self-promotion seems pervasive in today's world. It's surely not limited to my generation. And it seems to be increasing, at least as it relates to severe weather. It surely can be argued that this blog could be interpreted as a form of self-promotion, but I think rather than seeking fame and fortune, I'm putting my thoughts out as catalyst for discussion - not lining my pockets with cash or attempting to gain fame as a consequence.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
More on "extreme" storm chasing
Recent tornado situations once again have produced incidents where chasers have found themselves in danger from tornadoes, and narrowly escaped serious injuries or death. Then, to compound the irresponsibility of such actions, they post their "I'm in the tornado!" videos as a digital badge of their "courage". And they license such videos, hoping to get them aired - for a price, of course.
I've talked about this at some length before, and expressed my concerns. But a recent Facebook post accused those critical of "extreme" chasers as being "haters", encouraging the posters of extreme videos to keep up their actions in the face of any criticism. Chasers unwilling to risk themselves by getting close to tornadoes are called "sissies" or worse. The particular subset of chasers represented by such extreme attitudes has been with us for quite a while. They rightly say we have no power to stop them from what they choose to do. I expect to change no one's mind with this blog.
The loss of the Twistex chase team on 31 May last year in the El Reno tornado has sent a message to all chasers: even seasoned veterans trying to be as safe and responsible as possible (while trying to carry out an inherently dangerous mission) can make a mistake in certain situations. The El Reno HP supercell storm produced a large, "wedge" tornado, moving somewhat erratically, wrapped in rain. By getting in close to the mesocyclone where situation awareness became difficult, many chasers were putting themselves in danger and several had some narrow escapes, in addition to those who did not manage to escape. Many of us came away from that experience with the new (and old) lessons for safety becoming increasingly relevant to us in our chasing decisions. Many of us learned several lessons from the tragic outcome of 31 May 2013 - but of course, the "extreme" crowd has already demonstrated this year they have learned little or nothing from the loss of their friends and chasing colleagues. Some of those lessons were already known from the now decades-long history of storm chasing, some came from that terrible day. That some chasers would ignore these lessons was, unfortunately, a predictable response from that group of extreme chasers who consistently thumb their noses in defiance at anyone critical of their behavior, sneering contemptuously at those whom they label as "haters", and referring to them as "sissies" for not indulging in dangerous behavior of the sort they crave.
I have no problem with someone selling their stills and video from storm chasing. I've been doing it for a long time, and it's helped pay for the costs of storm chasing - but the tally sheet at the end of most years tells me I just about break even with my sales. That's fine by me - I continue to think of storm chasing as a hobby, not a profession, so I do it for the fun and excitement of being able to witness the awesome spectacle of severe storms. I shoot stills and video to capture the moments during a chase and - to sell if I can. I don't chase "competitively" with anyone and I'm never jealous of someone else's success. All I care about when it comes to the extreme chasers is that when they broadcast their near-death experiences and contempt for responsible behavior, they do two things that concern me:
I've talked about this at some length before, and expressed my concerns. But a recent Facebook post accused those critical of "extreme" chasers as being "haters", encouraging the posters of extreme videos to keep up their actions in the face of any criticism. Chasers unwilling to risk themselves by getting close to tornadoes are called "sissies" or worse. The particular subset of chasers represented by such extreme attitudes has been with us for quite a while. They rightly say we have no power to stop them from what they choose to do. I expect to change no one's mind with this blog.
The loss of the Twistex chase team on 31 May last year in the El Reno tornado has sent a message to all chasers: even seasoned veterans trying to be as safe and responsible as possible (while trying to carry out an inherently dangerous mission) can make a mistake in certain situations. The El Reno HP supercell storm produced a large, "wedge" tornado, moving somewhat erratically, wrapped in rain. By getting in close to the mesocyclone where situation awareness became difficult, many chasers were putting themselves in danger and several had some narrow escapes, in addition to those who did not manage to escape. Many of us came away from that experience with the new (and old) lessons for safety becoming increasingly relevant to us in our chasing decisions. Many of us learned several lessons from the tragic outcome of 31 May 2013 - but of course, the "extreme" crowd has already demonstrated this year they have learned little or nothing from the loss of their friends and chasing colleagues. Some of those lessons were already known from the now decades-long history of storm chasing, some came from that terrible day. That some chasers would ignore these lessons was, unfortunately, a predictable response from that group of extreme chasers who consistently thumb their noses in defiance at anyone critical of their behavior, sneering contemptuously at those whom they label as "haters", and referring to them as "sissies" for not indulging in dangerous behavior of the sort they crave.
I have no problem with someone selling their stills and video from storm chasing. I've been doing it for a long time, and it's helped pay for the costs of storm chasing - but the tally sheet at the end of most years tells me I just about break even with my sales. That's fine by me - I continue to think of storm chasing as a hobby, not a profession, so I do it for the fun and excitement of being able to witness the awesome spectacle of severe storms. I shoot stills and video to capture the moments during a chase and - to sell if I can. I don't chase "competitively" with anyone and I'm never jealous of someone else's success. All I care about when it comes to the extreme chasers is that when they broadcast their near-death experiences and contempt for responsible behavior, they do two things that concern me:
- They glorify doing dangerous things that could result in their fatalities and those who chase with whom they chase. This confirms the bias the media have in regarding storm chasers as crazy. It reinforces an image of chasing that's not appropriate for most of us. In effect, it's promoting an inappropriate stereotype applied to all of us.
- They encourage others to emulate their behavior, perhaps in hopes of achieving fame and fortune as a chaser, or perhaps just for the adrenaline. Real fame and fortune, of course, is just an illusion for all but a very tiny fraction of chasers who have marketed themselves as "extreme", only a few of whom actually know what they're doing well enough to become rich and famous for their exploits.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Thoughts on an event 15 years ago
Today marks the 15th anniversary of the tornado outbreak that began on the afternoon of 03 May 1999. That day, I was "head down" into my research at my NSSL office, not planning on chasing, because I always had much to do professionally before I went on my annual chase vacation. As the afternoon wore on, word filtered up from the SPC below (in the old NSSL building on North Campus) that the outlook had been upgraded to "high risk". Then, toward the end of my workday, about to leave for home, I drifted down to the research/operational workstation room that was next door to the SPC operations area. In checking out the developing storms, it seemed that the storms beginning to our southwest were left-movers and didn't pose much of a threat - but I thought "Well, it's going to be in my backyard, so I might as well go out and take a look-see." I hadn't brought my cameras, so I had to go home to fetch them. By the time I got home, a quick look at the TV showed a tornado in progress on live feed! I barreled out the door and got into the chase recounted here.
But I don't want to reminisce about that chase, per se, in today's blog post. Rather I want to consider the account (in that link above) of my damage surveys and how I feel about things today, with the passage of 15 years. I remember a talk I gave somewhere about storms and storm chasing - during the Q&A following the talk, someone asked me if I'd ever seen an F-5 tornado, and I'd responded, "No, the strongest tornadoes I've ever seen were only F-4s." I recall being mildly amused by the question, but also a bit offended by the implications. That question also reminds me of the scene in that awful movie Twister where the hero Bill Harding (played by Bill Paxton) is held in awe because he's the only one in their merry band who's actually seen an F-5. Somehow, it seemed my status as a chaser, as seen by others, was diminished because I'd not seen an F-5 tornado. Like an F-5 tornado was the chasing equivalent of a 12-point buck mounted on my wall.
After the incredible day's chase on 03 May 1999, I was pretty sure I'd seen my first F-5 tornado and that carried with it some sense of fulfillment - until the BPAT survey began, and I had another chance to see for myself, with my own senses, what tornadoes can do. I'd participated in other surveys before, included that done for the storied 24 May 1973 tornado that hit Union City, OK. That tornado had initiated some concern within me (see item #32, here) for the morality of storm chasing (see my previous blog) and I eventually resolved that concern when I remembered that my desire to see a tornado had absolutely no effect on the atmosphere. I was not responsible for the devastation of tornadoes, so my conscience was clear.
I hope my overall feeling of horror comes through in my personal account of the BPAT survey. In the days following the event, I felt a growing anger over the superficial and sensationalized media treatment of the 03 May 1999 outbreak. In retrospect, my real take-away from the survey was the realization that no one who had not experienced a devastating tornado could even begin to understand the feelings of the survivors. That feeling has been reinforced by a project reviewing the 1925 Tri-State tornado - it was clear by interviewing the survivors that the impact of their experiences still was felt strongly nearly more than 70 years later! As obvious as that seems to me now, it was something of a revelation then. With the passage of 15 years, that theme has come more and more to the forefront of my feelings about storms.
I haven't lost my fascination with tornadoes and the storms that produce them. I haven't lost the desire to go out and see them for myself. But as time passes and more events accumulate in the record books of tornadoes, it's become much more difficult than it used to be to detach myself from the tragedies they produce and stay focused on the science and the storm chasing experience. I understand why some people can view storm chasing as immoral or hostile activity, although I maintain that it's neither of those. When I think about the storms of 03 May 1999, it's no longer only in terms of the excitement of that chase. I now feel more strongly than ever that we professionals need to put more effort behind programs that can mitigate the awful consequences of a tornado in a populated area: improve our forecasts, support the imposition of more substantial building construction and the spread of suitable tornado shelters, and so on.
Rather than feeling a sort of wistful echo of my experiences as a chaser on 03 May 1999, I'm now reminded of the terrible feelings I had during the BPAT survey, talking with survivors and seeing first hand what this phenomenon can do to humans. How can I feel excited recalling a successful chase on that day when I think about what that storm did to the people in its path? It's taken me several decades of storm chasing to reach this point, so I certainly can understand some of the enthusiasm for the experience that relatively new chasers feel. I just hope they can begin to develop more empathy for the survivors and not let their excitement dominate that empathy.
But I don't want to reminisce about that chase, per se, in today's blog post. Rather I want to consider the account (in that link above) of my damage surveys and how I feel about things today, with the passage of 15 years. I remember a talk I gave somewhere about storms and storm chasing - during the Q&A following the talk, someone asked me if I'd ever seen an F-5 tornado, and I'd responded, "No, the strongest tornadoes I've ever seen were only F-4s." I recall being mildly amused by the question, but also a bit offended by the implications. That question also reminds me of the scene in that awful movie Twister where the hero Bill Harding (played by Bill Paxton) is held in awe because he's the only one in their merry band who's actually seen an F-5. Somehow, it seemed my status as a chaser, as seen by others, was diminished because I'd not seen an F-5 tornado. Like an F-5 tornado was the chasing equivalent of a 12-point buck mounted on my wall.
After the incredible day's chase on 03 May 1999, I was pretty sure I'd seen my first F-5 tornado and that carried with it some sense of fulfillment - until the BPAT survey began, and I had another chance to see for myself, with my own senses, what tornadoes can do. I'd participated in other surveys before, included that done for the storied 24 May 1973 tornado that hit Union City, OK. That tornado had initiated some concern within me (see item #32, here) for the morality of storm chasing (see my previous blog) and I eventually resolved that concern when I remembered that my desire to see a tornado had absolutely no effect on the atmosphere. I was not responsible for the devastation of tornadoes, so my conscience was clear.
I hope my overall feeling of horror comes through in my personal account of the BPAT survey. In the days following the event, I felt a growing anger over the superficial and sensationalized media treatment of the 03 May 1999 outbreak. In retrospect, my real take-away from the survey was the realization that no one who had not experienced a devastating tornado could even begin to understand the feelings of the survivors. That feeling has been reinforced by a project reviewing the 1925 Tri-State tornado - it was clear by interviewing the survivors that the impact of their experiences still was felt strongly nearly more than 70 years later! As obvious as that seems to me now, it was something of a revelation then. With the passage of 15 years, that theme has come more and more to the forefront of my feelings about storms.
I haven't lost my fascination with tornadoes and the storms that produce them. I haven't lost the desire to go out and see them for myself. But as time passes and more events accumulate in the record books of tornadoes, it's become much more difficult than it used to be to detach myself from the tragedies they produce and stay focused on the science and the storm chasing experience. I understand why some people can view storm chasing as immoral or hostile activity, although I maintain that it's neither of those. When I think about the storms of 03 May 1999, it's no longer only in terms of the excitement of that chase. I now feel more strongly than ever that we professionals need to put more effort behind programs that can mitigate the awful consequences of a tornado in a populated area: improve our forecasts, support the imposition of more substantial building construction and the spread of suitable tornado shelters, and so on.
Rather than feeling a sort of wistful echo of my experiences as a chaser on 03 May 1999, I'm now reminded of the terrible feelings I had during the BPAT survey, talking with survivors and seeing first hand what this phenomenon can do to humans. How can I feel excited recalling a successful chase on that day when I think about what that storm did to the people in its path? It's taken me several decades of storm chasing to reach this point, so I certainly can understand some of the enthusiasm for the experience that relatively new chasers feel. I just hope they can begin to develop more empathy for the survivors and not let their excitement dominate that empathy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
