With what existential crisis are you grappling right now?

[mypasswordis]

I like headphones, beer and pussy.

Wait, is that your existential crisis? Or is that your solution to the existential crisis? In other words, are those things what you live for, and what define your life?

[Hopstretch]

Typical stat fan. Over-analytical.

[mypasswordis]

I guess it's time to rock out with my inverted penis now (which, btw, is not the same as a vagina).

[jp11801]

I'm pretty sure the actions of the individual "average person" do almost nothing to affect the larger picture.

By buying organic food, you incrementally raise the price of non-organic pesticides (as opposed to organic pesticides) which are the most effective means of curtailing the spread of malaria in Africa. Eat enough of it, and perhaps you'll be responsible for the death of an entire African person over your lifetime, but I don't think it's likely.

All the things you're talking about aren't proactively influencing anything but yourself. If you enjoy it more power to you, but you're not saving the world. If everyone did it, everyone would not be saving the world either.

There are real things real individual people can do to change the way the world works, but I assure you none of them are so simple as what you eat or how much you refrain from using fossil fuels.

.

most changes in the market place create conditions that cause a temporary rise in price it doesn't mean that they do not serve the greater good. Also if you view the organic movement and its market share you would see this argument rings false. With a 2.9% share of the overall food market place even with its 20% (2008 data) increase year over year it is a niche market. Concerns like fuel cost increases and subsidies have great impact over food prices than organic ever will

Average people do not make a difference -- exceptional people do. I think a lot of the milquetoast "make a difference with the little things" initiatives are ways for average people to feel better about not being exceptional.

I'd argue that most "exceptional people were average people thrust into exceptional circumstances.

I too would say that eating organic or riding a bike is not a reason to feel better yourself other than the personal enjoyment one may gain from doing so. The mere act does not make a person special or exceptional. Personally I am not a fan of the everyone is special movement.

Go ahead, call bullshit. If you can find me a study that argues that organic pesticides are more affordable or more effective than DDT, I'd be happy to read it. DDT does have limited effectiveness, granted, but it's still superior effectiveness to the alternatives. If there's something better and I missed it, I'm all ears.

This did not appear to be your original augment as stated , I'm not arguing that DDT has a lower effective rate that an organic substance. I was calling bullshit on your linking of organic foods to death by malaria or the cost of pesticides (DDT). Both are false, DDT is actually stockpiled in most African nations and some African nations make the stuff. Since it is not used in the US organic foods can have no impact on the price paid by an African nation.

, it's not up to you to decide which news sources are valid, any more than it is up to me. Glenn Beck links to the research of others, just like Kos and Huffington. I would hope you would evaluate anything I linked you to by its content, not its URL.

I was taking a leap of faith here as the assertion rang a bit crazy, I've really been enjoying some of his latest you tube clips;). He is fun to watch, not unlike my friend Olbermann.

You're building a straw man, here. I never argued against personal responsibility, I argued that there is nothing praiseworthy about incremental change in your own life, about switching from paper to plastic. You seem to feel that this is exceptional because it will cause a change if thousands of people do it.

I never stated that individual actions that are part of a larger movement are praiseworthy or make any one person exceptional, did I ?? I saw your statement of any one persons actions do not effect the outcome and answered that was not correct when these actions are part of a larger movment.

If you want a change, organize thousands of people. The organizer is the one responsible, not the organized.

As far as the status quo is concerned, it is the way the American system was designed to operate. Radical change is undesirable under the system we have built, and it only comes about through earnest crisis. Ergo, beware anyone telling you there is a crisis.

oddly enough all I thought I heard between 2000-2008 is we are in crisis

Apologies, should apologies should be necessary, before we continue this further. I've spent considerable time in Middle Eastern cultures where discussing politics is friendly, if extremely heated, and where political culture is very different from America, let alone the bastard America that is the internet.

I greatly respect the vast majority of you, and value your friendships. Please take my inevitable badgering as the good-natured discussion that it is.

why should you apologize, I believe our society lacks open discussion and often monologue passed for public debate. I learn much from people with differing points of view as it causes me to look into subjects I might not have previously thought to.

Very true. It was intended as gross hyperbole, and it is decidedly such. UN regulations on DDT post "Silent Spring" did far, far more to negatively affect Malaria than we as an heirloom-tomato-loving people ever will.

this did not seem to be cause as originally quoted but it is often impossible to hear the thoughts behind the keystroke. Issues with malaria in Africa is they spray 60-80 grams in homes to eradicate mosquitos. So while the use less that the US widespread use in the 1940-1970s the impact on people is arguably greater. The choice is pretty complex as would you rather have decreased sperm count, increases in breast cancer and brain development issues or 1 million deaths. I am pretty sure that neither you nor I have the answer on this one. It will be fun to discuss the finer points over beer at RMAF though, see you in a few days my friend.

I like headphones, beer and pussy.

X2 and QFT

Edited September 28, 2009 by jp11801

[morphsci]

I'm pretty sure the actions of the individual "average person" do almost nothing to affect the larger picture.

By buying organic food, you incrementally raise the price of non-organic pesticides (as opposed to organic pesticides) which are the most effective means of curtailing the spread of malaria in Africa. Eat enough of it, and perhaps you'll be responsible for the death of an entire African person over your lifetime, but I don't think it's likely.

All the things you're talking about aren't proactively influencing anything but yourself. If you enjoy it more power to you, but you're not saving the world. If everyone did it, everyone would not be saving the world either.

There are real things real individual people can do to change the way the world works, but I assure you none of them are so simple as what you eat or how much you refrain from using fossil fuels.

My crisis, if I have one, is how to be in a position to do those things right, rather than just stamp passports and set out bottled water.

Very true. It was intended as gross hyperbole, and it is decidedly such. UN regulations on DDT post "Silent Spring" did far, far more to negatively affect Malaria than we as an heirloom-tomato-loving people ever will.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Dude. If real ecotoxicological interactions were this easy to quantify and assign causative influences we would live in a much simpler world, i.e. where organisms don't evolve they are static creations.

[CarlSeibert]

The issue I have with Glen beck is that he doesn't judge the quality of his source before passing it on to his audience, this opens him for ridicule. Last time I checked I really shouldn't have to fact check everything from a program that claims to be journalism.

When I was a little kid, the journalism market was full of diverse voices, although few of them were of any quality. From there, we somehow evolved into an infection of orthodoxy served up by monopolists.

So I should think Fox News is great, right? A step back toward our roots as a vital force in society or something? No. They're too big and too powerful to have shabby quality as an excuse. They go beyond spin. They plain, flat make stuff up and pawn it off as journalism. They apparently think their customers are outright idiots.

Which is somehow unsettling for those of us who are struggling to maintain some relevance in an industry that has become synonymous with "existential crisis".

So there. rant and an existential crisis all in one.

Oh, and I'll vote for the notion that "average people" who try to behave a little better to feel better about themselves aren't even close to "average" (at least by the standard of "average" that thirty years in this business has provided me) and just might be taking the first little step to being ready if historical dumb luck requires a "great person" in their neighborhood.

[Sherwood]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Dude. If real ecotoxicological interactions were this easy to quantify and assign causative influences we would live in a much simpler world, i.e. where organisms don't evolve they are static creations.

Evidently the intended meaning didn't come across, so I'll try to restate my purpose. DreamWhisper was asserting that his small contribution to making the world better was eating organic food. I was arguing that his small contribution could, hypothetically, make the world worse.

Of course things aren't so simple, on either side. I just think it's important to acknowledge the fact that certain things that are currently hailed as universal goods, in this case organic food, are not so universal, nor always so good.

I earnestly believe there are real universal goods, however they're not so close to home as what we eat and how we commute. For instance, a true saint named Norman Borlaug recently passed away, and I once had the privilege of meeting him, though I was too young at the time to understand the gravity of what he did with his life. He was, and is, inspiring to me, and I hope to do something so great as he did. Read about it further here, if you're so inclined.

There are still opportunities like this. I linked a worthy charity here some time ago, and I like them even more now than I did then -- Kiva.org does phenomenal work, and requires nothing more than money from us. Please do check them out. I'm currently in the very early stages of trying to implement a program like this in the State Department, and while it will take many years of my time, I earnestly believe it is something that will help the world to suffer less, as Dan alluded to.

As to the debated "can one man make a difference" assertion, I hold my ground and am delighted to discuss it further with you fine gentlemen.

[Genetic]

"One of the wonders of the world is going down...

One of the blunders of the world is no-one cares..."

Those bastards!!!!! if only they knew that my initial exam was quite clear:

I have parasites....

Amicalement

PS

"I think technology may have some benefits for a smart brain, but no capacity to produce compassion"

The Dalai Lama (2009 Vancouver Peace Summit)

[morphsci]

Evidently the intended meaning didn't come across, so I'll try to restate my purpose. DreamWhisper was asserting that his small contribution to making the world better was eating organic food. I was arguing that his small contribution could, hypothetically, make the world worse.

Of course things aren't so simple, on either side. I just think it's important to acknowledge the fact that certain things that are currently hailed as universal goods, in this case organic food, are not so universal, nor always so good.

I earnestly believe there are real universal goods, however they're not so close to home as what we eat and how we commute. For instance, a true saint named Norman Borlaug recently passed away, and I once had the privilege of meeting him, though I was too young at the time to understand the gravity of what he did with his life. He was, and is, inspiring to me, and I hope to do something so great as he did. Read about it further here, if you're so inclined.

There are still opportunities like this. I linked a worthy charity here some time ago, and I like them even more now than I did then -- Kiva.org does phenomenal work, and requires nothing more than money from us. Please do check them out. I'm currently in the very early stages of trying to implement a program like this in the State Department, and while it will take many years of my time, I earnestly believe it is something that will help the world to suffer less, as Dan alluded to.

As to the debated "can one man make a difference" assertion, I hold my ground and am delighted to discuss it further with you fine gentlemen.

Excellent point(s). Taking the arguement to extremes (or absurdity) to make a point probably isn't as necessary here as it is "some other places" on the internetz'.

Your one person cannot make a difference arguement however does fall flat if we take the next step. For example, you do not think 1 billion Chinese seeking the life-style we are so fortunate to be able to squander is not going to "make a difference"? What would be the effect if China had the same number of automobiles per capita as the United States? Conversely, what would be the effect if the avg. mpg of autos in the United States was raised 2 mpg. To affect change, things need to move in a direction, not a specific target (e.g. everyone does not need to drive a Prius or be a Vegan).

Oh, and saints/demons or heroes/villians are not born, they are made by the circumstances they find themselves in and how they choose to respond to those circumstances because everyone always has a little of both sides at all times, IMO.

Edited September 28, 2009 by morphsci

[robm321]

So I should think Fox News is great, right? A step back toward our roots as a vital force in society or something? No. They're too big and too powerful to have shabby quality as an excuse. They go beyond spin. They plain, flat make stuff up and pawn it off as journalism. They apparently think their customers are outright idiots.

They have grown to that massive status because it's the only place people can get the real news. It's the only place that's not an Obama softball parade. Show me where they have been caught making anything up like 20/20 and others have? They back their stories up with facts as stated already. I don't always agree as I am not a disciple of any network, but I like to hear how jacked up things are under our current government and not just when a Republican is in office.

It's both party's that are screwing things up, so don't play the liberal republican thing. It's boring and tired. No one really "gets" how bad taxes will bury us in the near future. Most likely after the next election for obvious reasons. We will start to understand that the bailouts and government run medical, etc. will cripple our pocketbooks for decades. This money will be all too real for us soon. And it's going to be a bitch and last for a loooong time.

Bush started this spending trend and Obama has taken into the stratosphere. Neither Bush or Obama are bad or evil people to me unlike the fanboys of either side like to make them out to be, it's the system and party's they are tied to IMHO.

That's a crisis that bugs the hell out of me. A future of hopeless financial struggling after we get out of this mess.

[postjack]

Glenn beck and Keith olbermann both suck, as does the huffington post. it is difficult to decide where to get ones news. I stopped watching television news altogether after last falls election, except for the often insightful Daily Show. the 24 tv hour new cycle is all alarmist infotainment bullshit that makes otherwise rational people argue about the merits of the personalities involved. for my news I currently listen to NPR and read various online sources. I have recently been enjoying economist.com. it's snootiness appeals to my snootiness, it's short articles appeal to my 21st century short attention span, and it's mostly anonymous writers who speak with a single editorial voice speaks to my opinion that entirely too much emphasis is put on individual news personalities.

regarding organic food: I'm a slow/organic food advocate. I buy what organic and local food I can afford. to say my dollar doesn't have an impact on what foods are available on the market is horseshit of the highest order. just go to walmart and check out the crazy array of organic products they offer, as opposed to two years ago. milk, eggs, produce, it's great. there are even walmart branded organic products. walmart sells this shit because people like me buy it, because it earns them profit. so in that regard my money makes a difference.

[grawk]

Your dollar definitely impacts what products are available. But the question is whether it impacts the bigger picture. I think the issue of organic foods is a complicated one. Do pesticides really make things worse, for example. Would the world be a better place if we switched to all organic farming? What if we went completely away from modern fertilizers. I think the largest difference would be the amount of land that would have to be devoted to farming would go WAY up, and could result in a massive famine.

[Dusty Chalk]

If one prefers masturbating to pretty much anything else, but would prefer to get laid than to masturbate; and...

If masturbating too much leads to not getting laid;

Where does one draw the line?

[mypasswordis]

I'm drawing the line, I'm drawing the line

I'm drawing the line, I draw the line

And I have my pride

I'm taking control, I'm taking control

I'm taking control, I'm taking control

And I save my soul

[Dusty Chalk]

I'm drawing the line, I'm drawing the line

I'm drawing the line, I draw the line

And I have my pride

I'm taking control, I'm taking control

I'm taking control, I'm taking control

And I save my soul

[postjack]

dusty: every other day is fine, with the occasional two day break.

[Dusty Chalk]

Thank you, sensei.

[swt61]

If one prefers masturbating to pretty much anything else, but would prefer to get laid than to masturbate; and...

If masturbating too much leads to not getting laid;

Where does one draw the line?

In the immortal words of Jackson Brown...

"But rosie you're all right -- you wear my ring

When you hold me tight -- rosie that's my thing

When you turn out the light -- I've got to hand it to me

Looks like it's me and you again tonight rosie"

[aardvark baguette]

dusty: every other thread is fine, with the occasional two post break.

FTFY?

[CarlSeibert]

...it's the only place people can get the real news.

Groan. I'm sorry I brought it up. No wait, Dreadhead brought it up. It's all his fault )

So now everybody is owed an explanation.

OK.

I work on a news desk. I edit pictures and video for a newspaper, TV station and website. I see the raw, unedited feeds from all the wires, all the supplemental wires and the output of our correspondents . I see the the same raw news that Fox News does. I see what comes in and what goes out. Believe me when I tell you those guys are not a credit to their profession. To get the same level of spin and manipulation in politically-leaning media, you have to go to the free weeklies, like New Times. Huffington Post doesn't come close. MSNBC doesn't come close. What makes Fox pernicious and New Times, ah "interesting" is that New Times doesn't misrepresent what it is. Nobody is going to come up to me and say they got the "real news" from New Times. Fox News, on the other hand has the brass balls to use slogans like "Fair and Balanced" and "We report. You decide." Their talking heads spend half their time tearing down the rest of the media for doing the very thing that is Fox News has built an empire on - and usually in incendiary terms. Good god. How can they live with themselves?

Part of the problem is endemic to broadcasting itself, not that this lets Fox News off the hook. News, analysis and opinion tend to blur together on TV. In some ways, that's a good thing. Newspapers have tended to be too dry. Rarely do we have an opportunity, without straying too far into the land of spin, put news in context for your life. To do the arithmetic to tell you, for example, how much oil is off Florida's coast, expressed in days of consumption. (A little less than six months of US consumption in case you were wondering. We did do that one little bit of math. It took a couple of people half a day to confirm the figures to "publishable" standard. ) TV does a lot better job of talking in terms that are meaningful in "your" life. On the other hand, consumers tend not to know where fact stops and opinion begins.

I got a scary memo the other day. The point was to praise Fox News for "owning" their niche. It contained a list of the top ten rated "news shows" on TV. Fox News owned most of the spots, MSNBC had one or two and CNN had one or two. That's not scary. What's scary is that not one of the top ten "news shows" was a news show. Each and every one was an opinion/talk show like O'Reilly, Olbermann, Beck or Maddow. No straight news in sight. The rumble you hear is Ed Murrow turning over in his grave. If the ratings people don't differentiate between opinion and news, how the heck is the "average person" going to do it? I don't know about you, but that scares the crap out of me.

Today's market is making it worse. Aggregators deliver much of "the news" that ultimately decides how our society is run. The Huffington Post is a good example, among tens of thousands of others. They don't report a damn thing. It's info-pinion. At least nobody runs up to me and says he gets "real news" from the HuffPost. But if you're looking for information that will lead you to, say, vote for someone, you've gotta know it's the farthest thing there could be from one-stop shopping.

Bottom line: If you want a conservative-leaning media outlet that you can trust for something resembling the facts, The Wall Street Journal is a good choice. It's available everywhere and despite some nervousness in the industry about its ownership, it still does quality work. The Economist is a good choice too, especially for US news. It's expensive, but worth it.

... if you want to be bored/entertained by my best rambling Fox News anecdote, read on. If you hurt yourself falling over asleep at your keyboard, it's not my fault. You've been warned.

One night I was editing the Iraq page. A picture intrigued me. It showed a crowd of people in Fallujah, of all places, chanting "Death to Terrorists!". Hmmm. Now here's another picture of what looks like same crowd at a different time of day. Now they're chanting "Death to America".

Dammit. What could have been a ten-minute job is going to take and hour and at least a couple of consultations with colleagues. And somebody is going to have to suck it up somewhere because I'm about to eat way too much deadline on this.

So I'm going through all the pictures and stories out of that part of Iraq, one by one, trying to figure out what I can do, and I glance up at the bank of TVs. Who should glare back down at me but O'Reilly hiz own self. He announces that he has something that the rest of of the biased, lying, sack of shit media won't dare show you...... my Fallujah crowd, in "Death to Terrorist" mode.

Now his producers are looking at the same thing I am. (Time zone difference. This material has been in east coast US newsrooms since mid-day.) Not only does this windbag legitimize some dubious data, he ascribes it broad social and political significance. And insults anybody with a professional conscience while doing it.

Now mind you, O'Reilly is about opinion, not facts. But that doesn't let him off the hook. With power comes responsibility. Opinions are optional. The truth shouldn't be.

What did I end up doing with the Fallujah crowd? To be honest, I don't remember. But I know for sure what I DIDN'T do.

[morphsci]

Your dollar definitely impacts what products are available. But the question is whether it impacts the bigger picture. I think the issue of organic foods is a complicated one. Do pesticides really make things worse, for example. Would the world be a better place if we switched to all organic farming? What if we went completely away from modern fertilizers. I think the largest difference would be the amount of land that would have to be devoted to farming would go WAY up, and could result in a massive famine.

"organic foods" typically use a shit ton of pesticides (they just don't typically use the really effective ones), so that's a moot point. it's impossible to have reasonable yields at commercial volumes without using pesticides. uncle bob's garden might not draw that many pests, but the 500 actors of tomatoes down the street does. it's not a linear problem.

i personally buy whatever produce i think looks like it's going to taste the best, which means i buy a mix of everything. i go to the local, and rather large, farmers market on weekends, and i've gotten plenty of great, locally grown produce there. i've also gotten plenty of really shitty locally grown produce there, too.

Actually by definition under the 1990 Farm Bill they cannot use synthetic pesticides but organic producers are free to use "natural", usually plant secondary compounds, pesticides. I won't argue if that is a good or bad thing, but from an evolutionary point of view I am much more comfortable with non-synthetic pesticides.

The real problem with that farm bill is they absolutely shot themselves in the foot by banning genetic manipulation of any crop labelled organic. There is a reason why all of the farmers from Indiana through Nebraska are utilizing BT corn. They can produce comparable yields with less pesticides. The reason they do it is it increases their net profits.

As far as organic meats and poultry that is where the real advantage of organic lies IMO. I am much less concerned about pesticide residues than I am about the antibiotics and growth hormones that go into most non-organic meat products.

[Currawong]

Groan. I'm sorry I brought it up. No wait, Dreadhead brought it up. It's all his fault )

Carl, the explanation and story is appreciated. I recall an anecdote about people in the USA surveyed and a scary percentage of them thinking that the X Files was a documentary, not fiction.

[swt61]

i prefer not having spiders in my oatmeal, which can only be assured by gamma radiation. in my kitchen.

Yesterday morning I stepped out of the shower, grabbed my towel, only to see movement out of the corner of my eye on the towel. After determining it was a small spider I flicked it into the shower stall. It was only then that I could see it was a Brown Recluse. Talk about a scary way to start the day.

Needless to say, last night entailed setting off bug bombs throughout the house.

[manaox2]

i prefer not having spiders in my oatmeal, which can only be assured by gamma radiation. in my kitchen.

I also have a serious spider problem.

[morphsci]

i prefer not having spiders in my oatmeal, which can only be assured by gamma radiation. in my kitchen.

Not a problem for me. I worked on a DOE nuclear site for 20 years and collected biological samples within the zone at Chornobyl, so I have it covered.