Bogus Gold

It's Bogus Mail day, here at the blog. That's the day when I pretend to answer mail from my readers (which I have to make up myself as my actual readers mostly send me their thoughts in the form of finger gestures).

Let's get started...

Hey, Doug, How come you're not posting more about the stimulus package? It's da' bomb in the poli-blogging sphere. signed, Rove-dog

Hey, Rove-dog, Thanks for asking. I'm not posting more about that for two reasons: A. Everyone else has posted so much about it there's little more to say. B. Diving into the details to find something original to opine on about it bores me to tears. I'm hoping for economic recovery, and not so wound up in a partisan mindset that I actually want the thing to fail at this point. I sort of expect it to fail, but how fun is a post about that going to be?

Doug, Isn't it about time you started posting on American Idol? I mean, the live part of the competition starts tonight. signed, Seacrest's Closet

Closet, Thanks for the reminder! Just a little reminder how that posting goes for those who aren't familiar. I try to get a review/reaction post about the live Idol performances up some time before the voting results show the next night. My schedule doesn't always allow it. Anyway, the time to look for my Idol posts is typically the next day after the performances, with a brief update attached after the results. And for those of you who can't stand American Idol, the post titles all include "American Idol" very prominently to allow for easy avoidance.

Doug, You've been kind of snarky and dismissive about science journalists lately. You're not exactly sporting a PhD in astro-physics yourself. Where's this superior attitude coming from, Mr. smarty-pants? signed, J-School Junkie

J-School, Good question. The main problem I have with science journalism isn't that I'm so much smarter. My problem is that science journalists writing about science have biiiig audiences. And when they get things wrong they do so with an implied notion of authority, when someone with even a cursory knowledge of the topic can see they're completely clueless. And that just... bugs me.

Let's say, for example, a science journalist in the New York Times noted a news item about the reconstruction of the Neaderthal genome and then took the further step to opine upon it as if he had a clue what he's talking about. He might write something like this:

Now that the Neanderthal genome has been reconstructed, my colleague Nicholas Wade reports, a leading genome researcher at Harvard says that a Neanderthal could be brought to life with present technology for about $30 million. ...

Granted, it would be disorienting and lonely for the first few Neanderthals, but it would be pretty interesting for them as well as us. (What would a Neanderthal make of Disneyland, or of World of Warcraft?) If our species disappeared and a smarter species took over the planet, I’d take the offer to be resurrected just on the theory that being alive beats being dead.

What do you think? Should we try to resurrect a Neanderthal? And if so, what kind of precautions should we take, and what kind of lives should we help them lead? I welcome all answers, but I hope that we won’t distracted by talk of genocide or slavery. Yes, previous encounters between advanced and primitive civilizations did end badly for the primitives, but I think it’s a stretch to imagine today’s humans trying to exterminate or enslave Neanderthals. Let’s assume we’d do our best to treat them well. How much would they enjoy living today? How much would we learn from one another?

In such a case I would be virtually shouting at the monitor upon which I read such drivel, because a journalist proficient enough in the basics of "science" to be given column space in such a venerable journal should not be allowed to be such a nincompoop. I mean, really! Is it that hard to understand the difference between theoretically reviving another species with modern techniques, and Encino Man?

Shouldn't someone mock him at least a bit for seemingly not understanding that the way scientists might bring a Neanderthal back to life in this case would involve gene replacement at the embryonic level, followed by implantation and birth in a volunteer human mother? That's not the same thing as "resurrection," in which suddenly we have a bunch of cave men walking around disoriented by our modern world and trying to make flint tools.

Shouldn't his notion that Neanderthals recreated in this manner are going to arrive with some kind of primitive "civilization" intact which might lead to clashing cultures (let alone risking species-wide slavery and genocide) be ridiculed in the name of "having a clue"?

Anyway, that's the kind of reason I have such a low regard of science journalism; and why, even though I don't claim to be the leading authority on any of these topics, I feel compelled to point out examples of craptacular reporting when I notice them. It's in the basic interest of discrediting non-credible voices.


That's all the time for letters today. All this work pretending I have mail to answer reminds me I need to go pretend to respond to my pretend outraged advertisers.