Thursday, July 29, 2010

"Bayfest - Who does it really help? K.M. Hayes"

Recently (July 19) there was a letter to the editor from "K.M. Hayes" that asked "Who really benefits from Bayfest?".  Here is the letter - I think you'll be able to pick out the absurdities without my help:

Sir:Where do all the flies go in the wintertime? That begs the question, where do the tens of thousands of people that come to Sarnia disappear to in the daytime? The stores and malls aren't crowded, parking lots are not full, there are no lineups at restaurants and fast food places, downtown is as empty as usual and we don't have to fight our way through hordes of people on the street.

I suspect many of them are sleeping off the effects of the booze and drugs the night before.

A survey last year said that non-locals spent very little in the community. After paying the exorbitant ticket prices, they probably do not have much left to spend.

Where is the estimated $4 million to $5 million supposed to come from and who really gets the benefit from it? Does any of this money end up in the coffers of city hall? Provide more health care? Cut the hospital debt? Fill the shelves at the food banks? Shelter the homeless? Families on welfare? The working poor on minimum wage (if they have a job)? Seniors on limited incomes? Bring in more doctors? The list of needs is endless.

An article in the Observer on April 30 stated that 96% of local residents thought that the event enhanced their quality of life and three-quarters thought it deserves government support. No way! What a load of bull. This is irresponsible and misleading reporting. Was a survey taken of everyone in Sarnia? I must have missed that one. I doubt if any of the people mentioned previously were asked either.

I think a few questions need to be asked. Who really does benefit? It may help hotels, some stores and food places, but not organizations and people who really need it.

-- K.M. Hayes Sarnia

Now, to address K.M's points and show how silly he/she is, we'll step through it.

Where do all the flies go in the wintertime? That begs the question, where do the tens of thousands of people that come to Sarnia disappear to in the daytime? The stores and malls aren't crowded, parking lots are not full, there are no lineups at restaurants and fast food places, downtown is as empty as usual and we don't have to fight our way through hordes of people on the street.

With an n=1, let me tell you about my experience in a local mall (Lambton Mall) shortly after Bayfest.  The lady at the store I visited told me that the mall organizes a sidewalk sale during the Bayfest period to capitalize on the influx of traffic.  I suspect that K.M. would suggest the "influx" is simply locals deciding that those two weekends are the best time to hit the local mall. 
 
Let us forget for a second that Bayfest brings in substantially more people than our hotels can handle (heck, one of the scummiest/sleaziest/dirtiest - if not THE scummiest/sleaziest/dirtiest motels in town was charging $325/night for a room - their sign says $40/night!) and that many people stay in neighbouring cities (Port Huron, London, etc.).
 
People are eating at our restaurants, visiting our auto-mechanics, shopping at our stores and the benefit is for everyone in this community.  (One could equally ask "who benefits from having Imperial Oil in Sarnia?" Equally as silly, mind you.)
 
I suspect many of them are sleeping off the effects of the booze and drugs the night before.
 
Wow, jump to the stereotypes.  Anyone who likes live music must be a drunk or a user - that's a safe assumption to make - especially considering HALF of the Bayfest concert area is not licenced and beer sales would suggest that the average number of consumed beverages is far below what is necessary for intoxication.  You're either lying or you're making stuff up - either way, you're wrong.
 
A survey last year said that non-locals spent very little in the community. After paying the exorbitant ticket prices, they probably do not have much left to spend.
 
I don't care for crowds and I'm not a music expert - my wife, however, is a fan of a couple of bands that have been to Bayfest.  For both of those bands, we did watch the shows in Sarnia - and we had seen them just before (or just after) at other venues.  The ticket prices in Sarnia are far (FAR) below what they are in most other venues.  Failure to compare ticket prices does not make your wishful (but false) thinking any more accurate.  If anything is exorbitant it is what other businesses charge to capitalize on Bayfest (room rates for a motel over $100, let alone over $300!).
 
I'm not sure that the survey said they spent very little in the community either - but I suspect making stuff up was not limited to earlier paragraphs of this letter.
 
Where is the estimated $4 million to $5 million supposed to come from and who really gets the benefit from it? Does any of this money end up in the coffers of city hall? Provide more health care? Cut the hospital debt? Fill the shelves at the food banks? Shelter the homeless? Families on welfare? The working poor on minimum wage (if they have a job)? Seniors on limited incomes? Bring in more doctors? The list of needs is endless.
 
The answers are, in order: everyone in our community, yep, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.  The police get a crapload of money from Bayfest (the City benefits), taxes are collected that pay for health care and pay hospital debt.  Local businesses benefit from the influx of visitors so they can afford to donate more to food banks, homeless shelters, families on welfare and the working poor.  The increased tax intake reduces the need for taxes that would affect seniors on limited incomes as well.  Oh, and doctors, yes, yes, yes.  Having Sarnia known for something, having a reason for the young and educated return to Sarnia and removing negative stigmas from the area means better opportunities to attract doctors.  Thanks, K.M., for pointing all of that out.
 
An article in the Observer on April 30 stated that 96% of local residents thought that the event enhanced their quality of life and three-quarters thought it deserves government support. No way! What a load of bull. This is irresponsible and misleading reporting. Was a survey taken of everyone in Sarnia? I must have missed that one. I doubt if any of the people mentioned previously were asked either.
 
Reporting does not become inaccurate simply because you disagree with it.  Nor do the facts change.  Look up the definition of survey and understand the application/use.  I bet you've answered questions on a survey that I have not had the opportunity to also answer.  That's reality.  Data is extrapolated from a sample.  Surveys can be flawed but not many are as flawed as your thinking.  Get over it, it's good for the City (area) whether or not you like it - and, yes, it deserves government support.  (Keep in mind that the government is spending millions and millions of dollars supporting other similar festivals not in our area - why shouldn't Sarnia be so lucky?  Other festivals with similar entertainers and real dollars of government support: Ottawa Blues and Jazz festival - Millions. Montreal - Millions.)
 
Countless organizations (charities, non-profits and community groups) benefit substantially from the work that is performed at Bayfest.  The organizers, staff and countless volunteers work tirelessly to put on a world-class show in our backyard and the best you can do is complain?  For how much it has benefited you without you even recognizing it, leave town during Bayfest - it'd be for the benefit of everyone.  I can assure you that your complaining has done nothing to fill the shelves at the Inn, or provide shelter for the homeless or attract a single doctor. Your high horse, it turns out, is a miniature one. 
 
I think a few questions need to be asked. Who really does benefit? It may help hotels, some stores and food places, but not organizations and people who really need it.
 
I have to assume that the letter was written to the paper as a "tongue-in-cheek" type letter - surely K.M. Hayes knows that the festivals in Sarnia are possibly the greatest thing to happen to Sarnia in a long time.  If it doesn't suit ones fancy, nobody is forcing anyone to go to it.  I'm not a festival attending type of person but I can't help but want to support Bayfest for how much it has helped our community.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

I don't believe in Macroevolution

A relative of mine was kind of enough to tell me (being a young earth creationist and all) that he believed in microevolution - that a person's hair colour can change or people get taller over time but that he doesn't believe in macroevolution - that an ape evolved into a human (ignore, for now, that anyone who claims apes evolved into humans doesn't understand what science really says).

Heck, I don't even believe in microevolution - because acceptance of an identifiable and justifiable set of facts is not a belief.  I accept the FACT of evolution and we have strong reasons and ample evidence to support the acceptance of the THEORY of natural selection.  Whether or not I accept it, however, does not change its status as a fact.

With that said, the argument over microevolution versus macroevolution is settled.  Macroevolution occurs via similar processes as microevolution but over a longer period of time.  Science has come to the determination that the earth is more (so much more) than 10,000 years old so what microevolution has done in 10,000 years becomes what macroevolution does in millions of years.

Sadly, humans have evolved to understand simple concepts, relationships, shapes and models - there was (is) no evolutionary benefit to be able to understand things outside of what humans typical encounter - in time or size.  It takes a willingness to accept new ideas, follow the logic and understand the processes to realize and/or accept that some things are difficult to comprehend.  However, not being able to comprehend something does not make it false/wrong.

Two points: The next time someone asks you if you "believe" in macroevolution, explain to them that it doesn't qualify as a belief.  And, secondly, if someone asks you if you believe in macroevolution, be prepared to debate with a young earth creationist. 

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Mother Teresa: The Vatican's Other Embarrassment

Recently I was discussing with a friend (a US citizen who happens to follow the Conservative/Republican party) the Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to Barack Obama (US President).  During the conversation my friend made the comment "He's no Mother Teresa" - a comment so absurd (and right) that my complete train of thought was interrupted.  That comment is what has me, today, writing about the Catholic Church's embarrassment commonly referred to as "Mother Teresa".

I fondly point out the interest that priests have for little boys and girls in reference to the "saintliness" of those who have "a direct line to god".  It is not often that I think of the shameful, though not as horrid, Mother Teresa.  If you haven't read Christopher Hitchens' book, Missionary Position, I highly recommend it (as does this review).  Mother Teresa was not a friend of the sick and the poor - she did little to take away their suffering as she spent countless dollars on the development of convents bearing her namesake.  Rather than provide medical treatment or take care of the needs of some of the world's most impoverished people, she used the money for proselytizing - for building the Catholic faith.

For that reason (and many more), Barack Obama is "no Mother Teresa" - even if his goals do not appear to be about reducing suffering and reinvesting in science, they are definitely not about the expansion of the Catholic Church or about using the most vulnerable for the advancement of ones cause.

During her acceptance speech, Mother Teresa told the world that "the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion".  She suggested that people should be using natural means (only) for birth control.  She fails to realize that one of the greatest threats to peace is poverty and the greatest threat to survival is lack of adequate food, clean water and proper sanitary systems.  She willingly enabled people to reproduce when reproduction was making the problem worse.  Receiving sexual education and family planning advice from a self-proclaimed virgin is not a stretch of an idea for a church that offers marriage counselling by (supposedly) celibate and single men.

Mother Teresa: Something else that the church needs to apologize for.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Rick Warren - What did your intelligent designer do to you?

You may not have heard the news but it made the headline on CNN - Pastor Rick Warren had his eyes burned while trimming a firestick plant

Given that Pastor Rick Warren would argue that the world was "intelligently designed" with humans as the primary focus of the "intelligent designer", why would Rick Warren have been burned by an item further down on the list of importance? 

Sadly Pastor Rick Warren turned on his "intelligent designer" and opted for science and technology to address his injury.  Couldn't prayer have cured someone with a direct line to "god"?

Just as "god" created all the beautiful things in this "world", she must take the blame for the less-than-ideal things that exist.  Why would humans be susceptible to firesticks, diseases and even other animals if we truly are "god's children"?  An all-perfect and all-capable "god" could have (I suspect they would have if they existed) created things much differently.

Or, possibly, she doesn't exist and the world, the universe and everything that exists is better explained by natural processes.  The more we learn, the more reason we have to accept that is the case.  I'm sorry, Rick, that you had your eyes burned - we can only hope that, when your sight recovers, you'll finally see the light - your god almost certainly does not exist.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Fitting Video - Dara O'Brien on Homeopathy & Nutritionists

ScienceBasedMedicine.org: Doctor's Data Sues Quackwatch

This is a repost of the article on sciencebasedmedicine.org by Kimball Atwood:

A few weeks ago I posted an article about bogus diagnostic tests. I cited Doctor’s Data, Inc. (DDI), as “a company with a long history of dubious offerings.” I also wrote:
You can’t help but have noticed that many of the links in this post are to articles on Quackwatch. That’s because the site is chock full of useful information about bogus tests, far more than can be found elsewhere. There you will find a more comprehensive list of bogus tests than I’ve mentioned here, and a larger list of laboratories peddling them. You’ll also find an article on “Dubious Genetic Testing” co-authored by the Quackwatch founder, Stephen Barrett, and our own Harriet Hall, and an article about bogus “biomedical treatments” for autism showing that—surprise!—Doctor’s Data and Genova Diagnostics are major players there, too.
I stand by all of those statements. It turns out that Doctor’s Data is not pleased that Dr. Barrett has so thoroughly blown the company’s cover.

As he describes on Quackwatch, about a month ago Dr. Barrett received this letter from a representative of the law firm Augustine, Kern and Levens, Ltd. of Chicago:
Dear Dr. Barrett:
It has recently come to the attention of our client, Doctor’s Data, Inc., an Illinois corporation, that you have, on a continuing basis, harmed Doctor’s Data by transmitting false, fraudulent and defamatory information about this company in a variety of ways, including on the internet and in other publications. Doctor’s Data is shocked that you would intentionally try to harm its business and its relationship not only with doctors but also with the public. Doctor’s Data has also learned that you have apparently conspired with and encouraged individuals to seek litigation against it, and have filed false complaints at various government and regulatory agencies against Doctor’s Data.
“It is never libelous,” you have said, “to criticize an idea.” However, you have gone way beyond the idea stage, and our client will not tolerate it. You apparently have carried on this conduct in an intentional manner and with the assistance of others. It is clear that you have a specific intent to harm Doctor’s Data, and this conduct must stop immediately.
We demand that you cease and desist any and all comments regarding Doctor’s Data, which have been and are false, fraudulent, defamatory or otherwise not truthful, and make a complete and full retraction of all statements you have made in the past, including those which have led in some instances to litigation. Such comments include, but are not limited to, those made in your article entitled, “How the ‘Urine Toxic Metals’ Test Is Used to Defraud Patients,” which you authored and posted on Quackwatch.com. “The best evidence for reckless disregard,” you have written, “is failure to modify where notified.” Consider this notice to you that if you do not make these full and complete retractions within 10 days of the date of this letter, in each and every place in which you have made false and fraudulent, untruthful or otherwise defamatory statements, Doctor’s Data will proceed with litigation against you and any organizations, entities and individuals acting in common cause or concert with you, to the full extent of the law, and will seek injunctive relief and monetary damages, both compensatory and punitive.
Doctor’s Data is a CLlA-certified company in full compliance with all state and federal regulatory and CLlA standards, and your false, fraudulent, defamatory and otherwise untruthful comments have been made to intentionally damage Doctor’s Data, Inc. This conduct will no longer be tolerated and if the retractions are not made as written above, the lawsuit shall be filed imminently.
Very truly yours,
Algis Augustine
Dr. Barrett’s reply included this:
I take great pride in being accurate and carefully consider complaints about what I write. However, your letter does not identify a single statement by me that you believe is inaccurate or “fraudulent.” The only thing you mention is my article about how the urine toxic metals test is used to defraud patients… The article’s title reflects my opinion, the basis of which the article explains in detail.
If you want me to consider modifying the article, please identify every sentence to which you object and explain why you believe it is not correct.
If you want me to consider statements other than those in the article, please send me a complete list of such statements and the people to whom you believe they were made.
Rather than sending Dr. Barrett such a list, the firm replied:
Dr. Barrett,
You have been making false statements about Doctor’s Data and have damaged this company’s business and reputation, and you have done so for personal gain and your own self-interest, disguised as performing a public service. Your writings and conduct are clearly designed to damage Doctor’s Data. If you don’t retract your false claims and issue a public apology, the lawsuit will be filed.
Today is June 14th, which is the deadline that was in our letter of June 2nd. Because you responded, you have until Thursday, June 17th, to post your retractions. If you do so and show good faith immediately, this will be taken into account in proceeding.
Jeff Levens

Augustine, Kern and Levens, Ltd.
Once again, Dr. Barrett asked the firm to cite the purported false statements:
Dear Mr. Levens:
My letter asked you to identify the claims that you believe are false. You have not identified a single sentence that you believe is inaccurate. Since you have failed to do so, I have no choice but to assume that you cannot. My offer remains open, as it is to anyone who is criticized on any of my sites. If you identify anything that you consider inaccurate, I will seriously consider what you say and act accordingly.
Thank you,
Stephen Barrett, MD
The result was predictable:
On June 18th, Doctor’s Data filed suit against me, the National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc., Quackwatch, Inc., and Consumer Health Digest, accusing us of restraint of trade; trademark dilution; business libel; tortious interference with existing and potential business relationships; fraud or intentional misrepresentation; and violating federal and state laws against deceptive trade practices…The complaint asks for more than $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
It also asks the court to prohibit Dr. Barrett and others from exercising their freedom of speech:
WHEREFORE, DOCTOR’S DATA, INC., Plaintiff, prays that this court enter an order granting Doctor’s Data a permanent injunction; direct them to remove or delete all disparaging statements and remarks pertaining to Doctor’s Data from these or any web sites under their control; and prohibit them from publishing these or any other or additional such remarks on blogs, the aforesaid websites, or any other web sites pending the outcome of this litigation.
Sounds eerily similar to the Simon Singh case in the UK. The U.S., of course, has libel laws that are far more protective of freedom of speech than those in the UK; but any lawsuit at all, no matter how unfounded, is burdensome to the defendant, who must spend considerable time and money on his defense. Thus a corporation with means can easily cripple an individual such as Stephen Barrett, who realizes no “personal gain” from what he writes on Quackwatch and lives on little more than a modest retirement pension. Roy Poses, referring to Scot Silverstein’s post over at Health Care Renewal about this lawsuit, observed:
Note that the Quackwatch publications which the suit addressed included one that simply described a lawsuit (filed by others), and another that simply summarized an article in Slate (written by others). Sounds like a SLAPP to me.
Scot himself wrote:
This seems like a case of legal intimidation and may be a case for Senator Grassley’s whistleblower hotline (whistleblower@finance-rep.senate.gov).
Dr. Barrett is well aware of this, but he is not about to surrender:
Very few people provide the type of information I do. One reason for this is the fear of being sued. Knowledgeable observers believe that Doctor’s Data is trying to intimidate me and perhaps to discourage others from making similar criticisms. However, I have a right to express well-reasoned opinions and will continue to do so.
Yes, it is true that very few people or places provide the type of information that he does. That’s why I linked to so many of his articles from my own recent post. You can’t find that kind of information on virtually any mainstream website that claims to give reliable information about “complementary and alternative medicine”: not on WebMD, not on InteliHealth, not on the NCCAM website—even though most people would probably expect to find it in those places, if they were aware of it at all. You won’t find on any of those sites, for example, that being “a CLlA-certified company in full compliance with all state and federal regulatory and CLlA standards” is no guarantee against peddling bogus diagnostic tests.
Dr. Barrett needs both money and publicity to fight this. Please go here to donate money. Please spread this story around and keep plugging at it. Let’s turn this into an opportunity to expose both the sordid reality of present-day quackery and the perversion of law that the suit represents, exactly as has now happened in the Simon Singh case.