Is the U.S. military’s overdependence on radar and indifference to UFOs a weakness that could be exploited by terrorists? That’s what the New York Times is claiming in an op-ed by Nick Pope, author of Open Skies, Closed Minds and the former head of UFO investigations for the British Ministry of Defense. Pope argues that NASA and the Air Force are ignoring potential national security threats by not investigating “UFO phenomena” such as a cigar-shaped craft that was reportedly sighted near the Channel Islands in 2007.
While he doesn’t explicitly say that these unexplained aircraft are of the invaders-from-another-planet variety, Pope claims that our skepticism towards anything “below the radar” makes us vulnerable to attack from human-made flying objects with which we’re unfamiliar (like oh, say, the secret invisible bombers that Al-Qaeda could be building in the Tora Bora caves?)
That the Times is suddenly handing the microphone to an avowed UFO believer seems a bit odd, particularly when you examine Pope’s history. Here’s a review from Booklist of Open Skies, which was a best-seller in the U.K.:
If Pope is correct, Earth is currently in the middle of an interplanetary war. He claims that while he was stationed at the “UFO Desk” of Britain’s Ministry of Defense, he studied UFO sightings as well as crop circles and cattle mutilations—all of which led him to the conclusion that the aliens are here, and they aren’t friendly. He believes it is time the British government and the world in general rally to confront the invaders. The author openly compares himself to Fox Mulder of TV’s X-Files in his struggles to bring forth the hidden evidence of the security danger to planet Earth… Although numerous incidents are cited, actual evidence is lacking, and logic is often absent from the author’s arguments.
Not exactly hard proof of anything other than the fact that Pope is good at spinning a narrative to win publicity. As fellow DISCOVER blogger Phil Plait put it:
(more…)
Americans love to hail our democratic system as the pinnacle of freedom and justice, the gold standard in the protection of human rights. But according to a new study by FSU political science professor Will Moore, countries with checks and balances systems in place are less likely to outlaw the use of torture.
The reason, Moore explains, is that a multi-faceted system of government makes it inherently more difficult to effect change:
“Checks on executive authorities are viewed as a positive attribute of liberal democracies,” Moore said. “Unfortunately, they are also associated with the continuation of the status quo. So this liberal democratic institution that at first pass one might expect to be positively associated with the termination of the use of torture is actually a hurdle to be overcome.”
After analyzing nine years of data from the CIRI Human Rights Database, which is based on Amnesty International and U.S. State Department reports, Moore found that other “traditionally democratic” aspects of government such as universal suffrage and a right to free speech increased a country’s chances of terminating the use of torture. They also found that 78 percent of the world’s governments used torture at least once during the last 25 years of the 20th century, and those who used it in a given year had a 93 percent chance of using it the next year.
(more…)
The New York Times is reporting that the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Department of Energy are invoking Title IX, the anti-discrimination law usually reserved for college athletics, to examine science programs at schools receiving federal money.
Specifically, the feds are sending investigators to take inventories of lab space and interview faculty and students in physics and engineering departments in order to determine whether there are signs of discrimination (an issue we’ve addressed before). The only problem with this tactic: Overt discrimination, the kind that leaves a clear and visible trail, is rarely what’s operating in science departments. Rather, subconscious biases (the power of which we’ve also discussed before) and subtle forces such as a lack of childcare options and flexible maternity leave are more likely to be contributing to the gap.
(more…)
The era of government regulation on calorie consumption has begun, and nowhere is it playing out more clearly than in California. The state legislature has proposed a trans fat ban in restaurants (a rule that’s already in place in New York City) and now Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry is proposing a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in South L.A. The ban is based on research indicating that 45 percent of the restaurants in South L.A. are of the fast food variety, compared to 16 percent in West L.A.; plus child obesity rates in South L.A. are 29 percent, compared with 23 percent nationwide.
The racial and socioeconomic politics here are obvious—KFC-laden South L.A. is predominantly African American and Latino, while the vegan/organic wonderland of West L.A. is home to a highly affluent (and mostly white) population.
Critics raise the obvious, and valid, point about incentives—rather than punishing restaurants for serving unhealthy food, shouldn’t we be offering economic incentives for health food stores and salad bars to open in South L.A.? Simply keeping a new Burger King out does nothing to provide South L.A. residents with healthier and more nutritious food options. As one busy mother interviewed for the piece said, “There’s never any place you can go over here to buy … organic food. There’s no Trader Joe’s over here.” That pretty much sums it up right there.
Image: iStockPhoto
With worldwide food prices on the rise, it’s time to play the blame game. President Bush started it off with a bang, stating in a May 2 news conference that India’s growing industrialization and increased food demand from the middle class were, in essence, the culpable parties.
No surprise, his remarks spurred indignant responses from Indian commerce and economics officials, who fired back with the argument that the increase in food prices has as much—or more—to do with American overconsumption as it does with industrialization in India. Their argument is supported by recent research showing that the 34 percent of Americans (and similar percentage of British) who are obese consume 18 percent more food energy than the rest of the population.
But another major factor that’s, er, fueling the price increase is ethanol. Since the embrace of the corn-based product as an alternative fuel source, the federal government has mandated that large amounts of U.S.-grown corn be converted into biofuels. To this end, the feds created additional subsidies to induce farmers to grow corn for fuel as opposed to food—meaning that substantial amounts of what was once food-producing land has been diverted to non-food production. Combine less product with higher demand and prices are bound to creep up.
(more…)
