thoughts
21 Jan 2010 - Do Not Donate to the Yele Haiti Foundation
When the Haiti earthquake struck, the world was appalled at the terrible suffering and devastation that was left, and most of us gave money to help in the disaster relief. I remember seeing the earthquake relief link on Google's home page and following it through to find an online donation form for Oxfam and Unicef. However, knowing that a lot of money goes into admin with these large charities (no fault of their own, it is just what happens with large organisations) I determined that I would find a smaller, preferably Haitian, charity that would be giving immediate aid. So with a bit of googling I came across the Yele Haiti Foundation which is controlled by US-based Haitian-born musician Wyclef Jean, and immediately paid them through their website, what was for me, a substantial donation.
You can imagine my annoyance therefore when the media reported, a few days later, irregularities with the Yele Haiti Foundation. You can read more about this here and here. For example, board members, including Jean, have paid themselves at least $410,000 for services provided to the foundation, and the corporate status of the foundation has been dissolved four times in the last five year period due to failure to supply state-required disclosure reports (showing where the money is going).
So if there is anyone out there thinking of donating to Wyclef Jean's Yele Haiti Foundation in the aftermath of the recent earthquake disaster, my personal view is that you should consider instead one of the major international charities.
07 Jan 2010 - New Scientist Sinks to New Low
Since 1956, the weekly science magazine New Scientist, has published many fascinating scientific articles and news stories. But the thing to be weary of with this particular science magazine is the large advertisement section in the latter part, a section much larger and more job recruitment based than any other popular science magazine. University positions and corporate research positions are offered in abundance. However, when ever you get that level of financial support you can bet that the editorial is going to be biased in some way in support its advertisers.
So whilst I was flicking through some old new Scientist magazines wondering if there was anything worth keeping before recycling them, I came across an editorial in the 2 May 2009 edition entitled "We need a flu Manhattan project". Here are some quotes from it:
"A pandemic is looming though it comes not from bird flu in Asia, as we thought it might, but swine flu in Mexico. It may yet fizzle out — Viruses like this have done before — but no researcher we have spoken to is hopeful."
The article quotes exaggerated historical figures on flu deaths and generally urges increased vaccination. It ends boldly saying, "Either we use every tool at our disposal to shore up our defences or we keep telling people to wash their hands a lot, and watch the death toll rise."
Well the death toll didn't rise and New Scientist were victims of, consciously or unconsciously, supporting the interests of their advertisers, many of whom are pharmaceutical companies that are involved with the manufacture of vaccines. It is scandalous that a leading journal like this would collude with the profit interests of big business at the expense of public health and safety — and all in the name of good science!
[For an insiders view of the vaccine money-making scam perpetrated by the pharmaceuticals, watch this interview on youtube with Dr. Chopra.]
05 Jan 2010 - All-That-Is versus God
I am currently reading the book The God Theory by Bernard Haisch. The book contains interesting information and Haisch is certainly scientifically literate [he is a leading scientist after all], but I can't help feeling that bringing in a "God Hypothesis" just throws in an unnecessary variable in the equation. After all, if what we label "God" is All-That-Is in every dimension and in every multiverse, then calling it anything that differentiates it from All-That-Is only distorts this understanding.
We give things and beings names to differentiate them from other things and beings, so labeling All-That-Is as "God" is unhelpful except to those who have a cultural proclivity to religious labels. And to compound this unhelpfulness, this "God" label is associated with so many different and limiting belief systems and dogmas.
People kill in the name of God; people are fanatics in the name of God. But do people kill in the name of All-That-Is? Do people become All-That-Is zealots? Of course not… All-That-Is is just too inclusive to be used as a justification for cruel and fanatical behaviour. You can't kill in the name of All-That-Is. But you can kill in the name of a portion of "All-That-Is" that you consider to be "good" — God.
And does it even make any sense to use the label "creator" for All-That-is? The term is meaningless in this context. Again, it actually only makes sense when you use this label for a portion of All-That-Is — the God or Good portion. Otherwise creation is a spontaneous manifestation out of nothing, a concept that may confound our everyday minds but one that may be a lot closer to the truth.
So Haisch brings in a lot of good borderline science but sabotages his efforts at integrating it with a spiritual outlook by using outdated "God" labels. I can understand that he may be doing this to redress some balance between Science and Religion, but what he does not seem to grasp is that, even though Science and Religion are competing belief systems, they actually have a lot in common with each other. They are what might be called macro-conceptulisations used to control populations and justify heartless behaviour. (Sure, there are conceptual differences, but the context of that conceptualisation is quite similar.)
But an All-That-Is based belief system cannot be used in the same way for manipulation. So it would be good to see more books written on borderline science and spirituality that redefine both into a unified whole rather than trying to meld outdated belief systems.
