Sunday, February 28, 2010

Major Faults in Earthquake Reporting

I don't know whether any of you had the misfortune to see Geraldo Rivera's evening show on Fox News the day of the Chilean quake. He has to be the single worst professional journalist on all of television: he is inappropriately chummy in interviews, often calling guests "bud" or "pal"; he is grossly uninformed on virtually all scientific matters; he is prone to using phrases and figures of speech that titillate and give a completely mistaken impression; and he habitually brings poor guests aboard--quite often those who have absolutely no knowledge of or background in the story's subject (in this case, earthquake and tsunami science). He leers and smirks, feigns crocodile tears, licks his chops, and caps everything off with an appalling punchline. He is insufferable. I hate to say it, but he seems right at home on the Fox network.

Rivera's show on the Chilean quake and tsunami was filled with the most unimaginable and irresponsible pseudo-science and quackery. The rest of it was a baffling series of non sequiturs. Herewith a sampling:

  • What happened in Hawaii was a tsunami "false alarm."
  • A quake of magnitude 9.5 will sooner or later occur in Southern California.
  • Sediment seen off the coast of Hawaii the day of the quake was transported from the coast of Chile.
  • No tsunami occurred that day in Hawaii. It "passed them by."
  • The tsunami in Sumatra and Thailand in 2004 was only 8 feet high, but "pushed several miles inland."
I think this garbage requires the scientific community to publicly correct Rivera and Fox news. This bumbler does too much harm.

I'll tell you who was impressive--scientifically--that evening. His name is David Shuster and he's on MSNBC. In his questions to guests and his comments to the viewer, Shuster displayed a solid layman's understanding of earthquake and tsunami science, light years ahead of any of his colleagues at MSNBC, Fox, or CNN. Even his more casual verbiage throughout the broadcast revealed an awareness of important scientific distinctions (such as that between Richter and moment magnitude).

I betcha he's read Susan Hough's book Earthshaking Science.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Musings

My stress levels hit the roof this past weekend when I did our yearly taxes. While our returns are rather simple compared to many, they're ridiculous enough to make me very angry. For example, in figuring how much of our Social Security is taxable, I must do a full-page worksheet that is perhaps the most disgusting form yet for the IRS. You take one half of one line, add it to another line, then multiply that by .85 percent, then take the smaller of that line or the other one and add to a line at the top of the page, etc. For your own amusement, check it out on the irs.gov web site. Further, I think all income tax rules and regulations have been written for some particular person or entity. There can be no other reason for such nonsense. A flat 10 percent tax for every person and corporation would solve this and perhaps many of our financial problems. And it would greatly reduce one government department. By the way, do any of us think that either political party will ever reduce government? Federal employees vote too, you know.

Americans constantly decry human rights violations in China. There are, of course, such problems there. At the same time, a recent story shows that the Chinese actually might think more about endangered animal species than American environmentalists do. A man in China shot and ate the last Indochinese tiger in a certain part of the country, if not the entire country. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and those who helped him cut up and eat the animal were sentenced to 3 or 4 years. Do you think that would have happened here? Never. He and they would have been put on probation at the most with no real punishment for eliminating one of nature's beautiful animals. Yes, I'm an animal lover, but I'm also a person who believes in delivering proper punishment to those who break laws meant to protect citizens. Eliminating one species of animal breaks the delicate chain that will ultimately affect everyone left on the planet.

I'm enjoying the Winter Olympics. True, I liked the every-four-years event better when I thought the participants were mostly amateurs, not the millionaires who compete these days. Still, I was on the edge of my seat at the end of the 30 km cross country, men's figure skating, and men's speed skating. No interest at all in the hockey, halfpipe, skeleton, or super G. And please tell me why anyone with a DVR or even an old VCR would sit through the Olympics with all the ads and not record the shows to watch the next day? In fact, I can't imagine why anyone would watch any ads with the equipment available to cut them out.

Recently, a story in our local paper featured a woman who said she had to hit up area food closets to supplement the $640 per month she received in food stamps to feed herself and three small children. If that woman knew how to cook, she wouldn't need the food closets. The food stamp amount is more than enough to feed her family. It's my guess that she buys prepared foods, cold cereals (wonder if her kids have ever eaten oatmeal), boxed entrees, expensive meats, and so forth. She could cook beans and rice and make everything from burritos to huevos rancheros. She could slow-cook inexpensive meats in a crockpot with fresh vegetables and serve it all over whole-wheat noodles or brown rice for several meals. She could make pots of soups and stews. Cooking is a lost art and it's such a shame, not only because people don't eat as well as they once did but because financially it can be a disaster. We all pay for the laziness of others.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Crime and Punishment

I pass the local high school often. Today, I saw a sign hanging on the chain-link fence: Minor drinking, major problems.

It didn't cost much--maybe $15. It was one of those vinyl banners reinforced with stitching. The printing can be done anywhere.

But it's of no value whatsoever. Who but a prattling social-engineer lefty would think it effective? Who believes most "public service announcements" on TV or radio are effective? There is only one way to stop teens from drinking and driving: the sure threat of swift and severe punishment. And even that only lowers the likelihood; it's no guarantee. But it's the only hope society has of decreasing the number of drunken teen drivers. People who are hell bent on engaging in some irresponsible activity are not going to see a banner hanging somewhere or watch a PSA and suddenly see the light. But they might--they just might--curb their inclinations if they know of a certainty that they will be punished severely if caught.

So instead of hanging banners and playing touchy-feely with beer-filled 17-year-olds, let's start sending them to jail for a year AND revoking their driving licenses for ten years. Let's see what preventive effect that has on the skyrocketing numbers of drunken driving "accidents" (and let's stop calling them accidents and start calling them crimes).

Of course, severe punishments have an even greater value than crime prevention. Such punishments also remove the reliably violent idiots from our midst so that the rest of us have a slightly better chance of enjoying long, happy lives.

These are draconian times; they require draconian punishment for violent crimes.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Tiger in the Lions' Den

Why is everyone in such a hooha over Tiger Woods? He's front-page news everywhere because he apologized. Does everyone really care about his marital shenanigans? The press feeds our own prurience and turns millions of us into crazed voyeurs and exhibitionists. We have no actual stake in the relationship between Tiger and his wife.

Cover his performance on the golf course. That's of genuine, legitimate interest. But this other business is only of wide value if he's running for political office. Otherwise, who cares about his character? As far as we know, he's not a felon. He's just a jerk. It's time for the whoring news outlets to cover something with actual news value.

Contributors