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:

It doesn’t matter who believes in aliens. What matters is — hello! — evidence.

Show me the clear pictures. Sh[ow] me to nonterrestrial-isotope-laden artifacts. Show me a frakkin’ flying saucer sitting on the White House lawn.

Show me anything other than blurry pictures and videos, eyewitness testimony, and black-out government documents.

Before we start diverting billions of already-stretched government dollars into an anti-UFO military program, it seems like a good idea to stick to Phil’s advice.

Image: iStockPhoto

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.

In the U.S., the debate over what exactly constitutes torture persists, and pro-torture advocates are continually buttressed by the ends-justifies-the-means argument for promoting national security. But somewhat astonishingly, the question that still hasn’t been definitively answered, either by science, military officials, or governments using the practice is: Does it really work?

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.

Not to mention that more often than not, what’s being interpreted as discrimination is occurring as self-selection. The Times cites research finding that, despite the fact that women make up only 10 percent of physics faculties, women with physics degrees have the same likelihood to go on to doctorates, teaching jobs, and tenure that men do. The separation happens earlier: Women are less likely to choose physics in high school or college.

Whether this choice is a result of nature or nurture remains the stuff of intense controversy. But for now at least, it’s not going to be solved by government investigations under Title IX.

Image: Flickr/DrKar

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 

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.

Ironically, it was all those corn growers creating an abundance of corn-based foods that helped obesity rise in the first place. Obesity and food experts credit the mass production of high fructose corn syrup, a high-calorie liquid sweetener found in most packaged foods, with jump-starting the obesity epidemic. The product, introduced in 1970, is now a staple ingredient in everything from soft drinks to fruit juices to cookies. In 2000, the average yearly consumption of HFCS hit 73.5 pounds per person in the U.S.

But now that all those corn fields are being diverted to ethanol, will HFCS production fall, leading to lower obesity rates, less overall demand for food, and thus lower food prices? It’s possible. HFCS came to dominate the market because it was cheaper than cane sugar; with more corn getting “eaten” by cars, the prices are going up, which may mean more foods sweetened with good ‘ol sugar rather than HFCS. As obesity expert Eric Finkelstein told me in an interview, “It’s not clear that [the ethanol shift] will help reduce oil dependency, but perhaps it will help with obesity.”

So while it’s done nothing good for food prices yet, all that ethanol land diversion may actually drive our obesity rates (and food demand) down—even if it doesn’t do jack to reduce our carbon emissions.