Apologies for the absenteeism

I've been away from this blog even though I had intended to fill it up with wonder... I got spooked and backed off for a bit while I figured out what to do.

I've also been thinking about the fact that I have strong reservations about discussing material for which I cannot provide strong factual or logical support. Epiphany: nobody gives a shit. Even assuming people read this, reason and logic stopped being fads a few decades ago. I'm not trying to impress anyone but myself.

That's a load off my mind.

The David Boyle / Vic Toews letters

Re: Stop Online Spying

From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.

We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.

Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.

What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.

For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.

Sincerely,

Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.

Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.

Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.

Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.

Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.

Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.

Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.

Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.

****************************************************************************

Dear Mr. Toews,

I want to thank you for taking the time to come to me directly with these assertions.

As someone whose college studies in philosophy, logic, and critical reasoning are now something of a distant memory, I admit I can sometimes get a little bit lost in even pedestrian discussions. That is why it is so refreshing to have my opinions gently corrected, clarified, and sorted into neat piles of “Myths” and “Facts” by someone who has demonstrated a superior grasp of these concepts.

I have not actually read the legislation in question, which I understand is something else we both have in common.

I also want to say that I wasn’t in the least bit panicked when your email showed up unsolicited in my private Inbox. To be honest with you, I have no idea how it is that you have my email address… it must be one of those petitions I signed. Well, no matter. I am one of those honest citizens with nothing to hide, so rest assured that in dealings with me you can shine the light of your pineal eye wherever you please.

Had I been a more paranoid sort, I would have taken this earnest attempt to communicate on your part as sinister and Orwellian, rather than as clumsy and affable.

Speaking of Orwell, I seem to recall he wrote a book called 1984, a book which I was required by some previous incarnation of government to read as part of the schooling curriculum.

In that book, a sinister socialist “police state” had replaced the beloved democracies of the Western world. Staples of this culture were constant warfare, sollipsistic manipulation of information, and surveillance of the citizenry by mad oligarchical collectivists bent on controlling the very thoughts of the people.

When I read the book, I was spiritually sick to my stomach for months. I was 14 years old at the time. I knew that I had been given a glimpse of a dark world as a warning of what could come to pass if we were not vigilant in safeguarding our civil liberties; a world in which God, whatever that is, had truly died, and that nothing, no beauty or light, would ever be allowed to rise to take His or its place.

When I look at the rise of the new Canadian Conservatism, I see a disturbing agenda at work to push us incrementally in that direction. I see this agenda manifest in the building of new jails when there are no convicts to fill them, the granting to yourselves of broad new surveillance powers, the flexing of muscle to keep scientists from discussing their findings with the media and with the public, and also the continual attempts to engage the public in propagandist rhetoric. Mr Toews, perhaps you can understand why there is some segment of the population that is somewhat concerned by such things, and why offense was taken at your attempt to push through new surveillance powers while engaging in propagandist rhetoric.

As you seem concerned by dissent and opposition to this agenda, I believe I may have a solution. Remove Orwell immediately from the high school curriculum across the country, round up all copies of the book, and have a big bonfire on Parliament Hill for Canada Day. Children can cheer and roast marshmallows while painting little red Canadian flags on their faces. Within but one generation, all memory of dissent will have perished in the flames of history, and then you can proceed with your sinister agenda, whatever it might be.

Yours,

David Boyle

Search Engine Optimized UFO News Aggregation Blog Entry Title

WARNING: YOU ARE ENTERING A ZONE WHERE BULLSHIT IS ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED.

I've decided to continue blogging conspiracy theory stuff. Why not? It's fun.

I've spent the last few weeks researching some of the most far-out assertions and claims I could find, and what I've discovered in doing so is a rich tapestry of material that is either a) disturbing evidence that the universe is way more fucked up than you think or b) a testament to the fertility, depth, and profound weirdness of the human mind.

So, today, let's see what people are saying about UFOS and ETs on Youtube. I've aggregated some links for you to check out.

Here's Buzz Aldrin saying that a UFO followed Apollo 11 to the moon.

Here's Buzz Aldrin saying there's a monolith on Mars.

Here's Dr. Edgar Mitchell saying the government has documents to prove that we're not alone.

Here's Mitchell at home going into a bit more detail in asserting a cover-up of alien contact going back to the Area 51 incident.

While some assert that Mitchell is a loon who has lost it, I would just like to state for the record at this point that I have neither a doctorate degree, nor photos of myself walking in space on my wall, so I am willing to accept his testimony as credible. He seems to be pretty lucid in both of those videos.

Here's Gordon Cooper talking about his encounters with 'a vast armada' of UFOs while on duty as an air force pilot.

Here's Neil Armstrong, a recluse who at one point was the most famous man on the planet, sobbing as he confesses to children that they will have to remove truth's protective layers in the process of discovering new things. Weird, right?

Here's a former Canadian Minister of Defense Paul Hellyer eloquently telling a crowd that the government is covering up evidence of UFOs and ET contact.

Here's the Mexican military going public with video footage of UFOs.

Here are 14 men from high levels of government and the military asking for more information on UFOs.

Here is Michio Kaku endorsing a book about senior military officials who have gone on record saying that they are baffled by the UFO phenomenon. The book is called UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials On The Record. Dr, Kaku says this is as close as you are going to get to a smoking gun.

Here's the author of the book, Leslie Kean, on the Stephen Colbert show. Leslie is an investigative journalist, as difficult as it is to believe that such a thing exists in this day and age. She mentions spending ten years researching her book. Wow.

A nod to the skeptics: Here's Bill Nye the Science Guy in his capacity as a member of the Skeptic's Society getting destroyed by former air force officer Bob Jacobs on Larry King Live. Notice Bill loses his shit early on and bases his approach to the material on a straw man argument (he attempts to argue against an assertion none of them have made). Reasoning skills 101 nono. His points are otherwise not bad, but he also insults the intelligence and skirts very close to impugning the honesty of the people in the room with him. A good lesson in how not to go about being a skeptic.

Reasons (not) to freak out: is the 2012 apocalypse bullshit or not?

I think it's best to lead off this article with a link to a Cracked.com article which clearly denounces all 2012 apocalypse nuttery as bullshit. Cracked.com is actually a surprisingly reliable source on some things, and the bias (everything is written with bias) is towards humor, which at the very least satisfies the critical rationalist's desire to see things examined with criticism and socratic dialectics. So, here you go!

My agenda in writing this is not to convince you of anything. Hell, I'm not convinced of anything! Science fiction author John Shirley has accused me of wearing an intellectual condom. He meant it as a dig at me, but I actually was sort of tickled by the allegation. So, before you roll your eyes at me for writing this article, please know that my only goal here is just to make information available.

If we are still here in 2013, I will, as penance, write a follow-up post ridiculing my past self for having any sort of an interest in the big picture!

So, let's see what they're saying about 2012: and let's start with Michio Kaku.

Famous and respected physicist Michio Kaku had this to say on August 19, 2010. Notice how he clenches his teeth while entertaining the moronic jabbering of the reporters he is talking to.

Here he is in December of 2010 chuckling dismissively about 2012 apocalyptic hysteria, emphasizing that people often forget the whole bit about "renewal" that goes along with the silly Mayan prophecies, and then saying that he's not really losing any sleep about it.

Here he is in early 2011 saying that he's been losing a bit of sleep at night.

Now, let's flash forward to November 4, 2011! Kaku, getting the brush-off from even stupider people, issues this warning! At about 2:15 he emphasizes, "We scientists made a mistake!" and then goes into some detail about how calculations of the forthcoming solar storm activity were off by at least a factor of 20. "We physicists are sounding the alert!"

Now, I know what you're thinking. If this was anything but total bullshit, surely NASA would be all over warning us, right? Or at least, they'd be warning their own people! Isn't it sort of weird to hear a government official babbling about a continuity of government exercise called "Eagle Horizon"?

Hrm. Well, I mean, if any of this was real, surely people would be noticing a real difference in their physical environment, right?

These Inuit fellas are probably about as sophisticated as the stupid Mayans, right?

Whatever. Let's have a look at what people in Antarctica think: oh, here's a guy who noticed a while ago that the sun was coming up at the wrong time of year.

Here's a guy who has noticed that compass headings are way off and that the sun is setting in the wrong place. But he's probably just another knob, right? Heck, maybe his compass is sitting on a magnetic rail.

Sooo, hell, I decided to go right to the source. Listed on my Twitter feed is Scott Maxwell, NASA's very own Mars Rover driver. Below is my tweet to him, and his response.

@marsroverdriver dude, inuit people are freaking out that the sun is setting in the wrong place and compass headings are off. reassure me.

----

Scott Maxwell @marsroverdriver

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite
• · Open

@boylegd Fear not. The sun will rise in the right place tomorrow, you'll see. All is well.

-----

@marsroverdriver That was a pretty specific reassurance, but thanks! :)

So, there you have it. All is well!

I did notice last summer that the sun was setting in the wrong place, but I dismissed it as a brainfart. I think that's an important clue to the nature of consciousness. Just as well, I guess.

You know what? If I was one of the Secret Masters and was looking for a chance to blow up Iran, I'd probably piggyback it on some sort of big natural upheaval! They should hire me at the Pentagon to give them ideas.

Thoughts for Japan

From where I sit watching the news, from a chair in the comfort of The Shire, I don't like to feel that I am given to hysterical, pointless lamentations of how much suffering and woe goes on in the world that is beyond my control. I assume earthquakes will continue to happen and I assume lives will continue to be shattered. I assume that as the population grows and humans continue to build their ant hives across the surface of this world, the devastation from such events will grow worse in terms of the death toll.

I have no words for those people and I do not understand what they are experiencing as they stand in the tides of the dead.

I watched my Twitter feed fill up with photographs and exclamations of dismay. I watched fingers wag. I watched it give way to discussions about the logic behind daylight savings time.

I imagine a man, not very old, gifted and bright with a degree in nuclear engineering from an American school. I imagine that three weeks ago he had normal, first world problems, just as I do. I imagine that he is now going to work every day, setting aside the grief of not knowing if his friends and family are dead or just missing, through a ravaged, apocalyptic landscape still trembling with aftershocks. He will suffer from radiation sickness if he doesn't die in an explosion in the next few days, or at least, that's a prospect is facing. He is still going in to his job only because he has chosen to sacrifice himself to prevent a disaster.

He will live more in the next few days than I will in my life.

Killer futuristic robots.

Screwed around with Windows Movie Maker for the first time today.

See the results here.

Meanwhile, they are making killer futuristic robots
now.

Here's some heavy reading about how the internet
is filling up with crap.

Random, Pointless Ideas About Complexity That I Had This Morning

Articles like this one boldly state that the human brain is "the most complex structure in the known universe". I think that is a very interesting -- if utterly pointless -- observation, one I've heard made over and over. It speaks of a perceptual horizon that mocks our attempts to understand the universe, once you start thinking about it. It has the self-referentialism characteristic of arguments that rely on the anthropic principle in some regard. Of course we can't know anything more complex than the thing with which we're knowing things.

The so-called "debates" or dialogues that concern themselves with intelligent design have a similar flavor. More or less intelligent people are having more or less intelligent discussions about whether evolutionary processes are more or less intelligent. But of course, intelligence is a subset of evolutionary processes in the first place. Can intelligence resulting from evolution make a real distinction concerning whether evolution is intelligent or not? Can craziness resulting from evolution make a real distinction concerning whether evolution is crazy or not?

We live in a snow globe, and our quest for a unified theory of everything is fruitless.

Douglas Adams famously said that if we ever did figure out the universe, it would vanish and be immediately replaced by something more complex. In fact, this had probably already happened.

I miss him.

I have long been a proponent of critical rationalism as a discipline offering some method of finding dialogue between different modes (fideist, reductionist) of knowledge. For example, most rational, scientifically-minded people would be very quick to ridicule the efforts of theologians who in bygone years discussed quite seriously the problem of how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. Look twice - those theologians were talking about Zeno's paradox, and they had some interesting insights. They were using a different language to express their ideas.

Here's what I think. A fly crawling across a compact disc on which Beethoven's masterworks are recorded, has no experience, no possible way of appreciating in any sense the scale of the significance of what it is interacting with. It cannot understand humans, or their history, the industrial revolution and the invention of electricity, lasers, SONY corporation, music, Beethoven, coffee tables, or any of those other things. Can these things... the hairs on the fly's leg, the brilliance of Beethoven's 9th symphony... be said to be real in the same way? What do we mean by reality, then?

Consider your receipt of this message. It formed as an idea in my mind, I clumsily encoded it in English in my own brain, then sent biological signaling to my fingers to cause them to transmit kinetic force to plastic keys, which triggered a cascade of electronic signals through a relay of machines, which then reconstructed the data as images and displayed them as flashing lights, emitting photons which then were received by your eyes, which then talked to your brain, which then reconstructed the information into words in English, and then deconstructed the emergent meaning encoded in that English for the underlying idea.

Is this message real, then, in the same way that a rock is real? Part of the same universe? Is there any intersection of the state space? Do objects actually exist discretely?

Beats me.

Complexity is a funny word. Reality is a funny word.

Maybe we need to rank complexity. Maybe we need to rank realities. Maybe we need to index and measure our experiences accordingly.