Preying Using Prayer

Regardless of the religious beliefs of an individual, it's rationally impossible to prove in a testable, repeatable (and by those two adjectives I mean "scientific) manner that prayer really does help people. Why Won't God Heal Amputees is a website based on that idea, and essentially debunks the idea that prayer actually helps people.

By all means, if people have faith and feel better via prayer, they ought to pray. After all, one has a duty to oneself as well as to others. If prayer (or secular meditation, whatever) centers a person and makes him/her feel calmer and better, then it has a benefit. To claim that it helps those about whom the supplicant might be praying, however, can lead to a sense of dangerous complacency.

Perfect example: the recent wildfires. A relief fund that is accessible on-line has been set up, so people can help with monetary donations at their convenience. Various companies offered discounts and even waived fees to help the then-evacuees, now survivors who are trying to pick up the pieces.

Additionally, I have read and heard many, many stories of people who packed up their cars with the types of supplies needed and drove over to help the victims of the fire. Personally, I helped clean up the house of my boyfriend's business partner's family. The type of breather needed to prevent inhalation of dangerous fumes and particles was hard to come by even in Orange County, but I called every hardware store in the area until I found some. I took them south with me. It was the first time I had directly participated in such an endeavor, and I hope that it is the last (footage of the house and Dan's business partner's reaction can be found here).

Whilst people were mobilizing to help others in a solid way, others were content to merely sit and pray, or send out Myspace bulletins urging people to pray. My response was a bulletin of my own:
re praying for the California wildfire victims:
Don't just pray, do something. If you feel like prayer is good thing, then by all means do so, just don't try to convince anyone that you're actually contributing anything. Everyone prays for any number of causes, but there is no statistical reason to believe that asking your god of choice for help will help in this dire situation.

People who pray and then tell others to do so as well as if it's some grand gesture are lulling themselves and others into a false sense of complacency.

A friend of mine responded:
Maybe people should do both?

I'll tell you now, If I've been helping people evacuate and put shit out, and it comes a time where I can't do anything, I'm gonna pray. When someone tells another person to pray for victoms, it's not like they're saying "fuck doing anything else."

Not trying to step on you here. Just saying.

(He raps, check him out.)

I realized that I hadn't really defined what I was trying to say, so I'll say it here. The idea that prayer actually, directly, and significantly helps those who are the subjects of the prayer preys on the tendency of the average person to not get truly involved with helping others. No one but the supplicant actually benefits from the prayer; that feeling of having done something good in their own eyes is enough for most people, which is the reason I call BS on the Myspace bulletins (aka "bullshitins"), emails, and websites urging people to pray instead of showing them how to take action to help. Saying a quick prayer in a moment of despair or praying when there's nothing else you can do is one thing, feeling self-righteous and satisfied because you said some words for someone to a deity in which that person may not even believe is what is wrong.

BS Factor:
the safety gear that was my small contribution

OMG CASTLE!: Coverage of the California Wildfires

I was in San Diego on Sunday, October 20, 2007. I had taken the Amtrak Surfliner and was relaxing with Dan, my boyfriend. We glanced outside and noticed that it seemed dark; stepping outside, we saw the soot and ash that had covered his backyard. Obviously, there was a fire somewhere not too far off. We used online local news sources to find information, as well as called the official San Diego hotline. Neither yielded much besides a location for the fire, but that was better than what people were getting if they were relying on television for their information: nearly nothing. I went home back to Irvine that evening only to view the Santiago Canyon fire from the bridge over the train tracks.

Over the course of the next few days, I would find out that San Diego didn't matter. I was hungry for news of the fires just south of me for obvious personal reasons, but if that's what I wanted, TV wouldn't provide it. I started bookmarking webpages devoted to the issue, but the lack of coverage still bothered me. It was obvious from the start that the San Diego fires were going to cause more damage and were more of a hazard to residents than the Malibu fires, and yet the one that continued to get coverage on almost all news stations was still Malibu. It was only after FEMA was called into San Diego that US news sources began to pick up the story and provide updates for those concerned about those more southbound along the 5 Freeway.

Two instances stand out in my memory of the overwrought coverage of the Malibu fires, and can serve as epitomes. The first is a reporter standing in front of a hill, reporting on how the small flare-ups on the hill aren't threatening any people or property. She was talking about something of, very literally, no consequence at all as San Diego was burning down. The second is the incessant repetition of the Persian castle story. The person who owned the castle is probably quite wealthy and stated that she didn't care too much that some of her possessions had been lost. Why newscasters were endlessly reporting on the story of someone who was insured and wealthy enough not to care is absolutely beyond me.

Not so beyond me, actually. The news media caters to the lowest common denominator and show what sells, and for some reason, we Americans love obsessing over rich people.

BS Factor:
One burnt-down eyesore of a castle

FEMA: Doublespeak for The Ministry of Truth

I have always been an avid reader of dystopian fiction, or, as a not-so-literary friend of mine likes to tease me, "anti-Utopian" works. The first time I picked one up was during Banned Books Week at the local public library. The work itself, Lois Lowry's Newberry Award-winning The Giver, is well on its way to being everyone's first dystopian book. I have since read (and recorded) as many dystopian works as I could (see Dystopia - Goals Of Dystopian Fiction).

The one that has lent the modern incarnation of the English language the most words is, of course, Orwell's 1984. If the greatness of a piece of literature is based merely upon its long-lasting and quite popular impact amongst readers, 1984 is the foremost dystopian work ever written. From the titles of television shows to popular political discourse, Orwell's imagery and words are as much ours as his.

Which is precisely why I thought I was dreaming of 1984 on Wednesday, October 24, 2007m the day I was informed of the now-infamous news conference in San Diego. Slate parodied it, but for those of us that have yet to properly read either of the question lists, I have a little exercise: Discern the BS. Below are five questions for FEMA, some from the faked news conference and some are made up. Can you tell which are which?

1) What lessons learned from Katrina have been applied?
2) What type of commodities are you pledging to California?
3) Can you address a little bit what it means to have the president issue an emergency declaration, as opposed to a major disaster declaration? What does that mean for FEMA?
4) There are a number of reports that people weren't heeding evacuation orders and that was hindering emergency responders. Can you speak a little to that, please?
5) Sir, we understand the secretary and the administrator of FEMA are on their way out there. What is their objective? And is there anyone else traveling with them?

Are you ready for some answers? Apparently, FEMA wasn't ready to answer anybody's questions. All of the questions above were from the real fake conference (doublespeak again). FEMA gave actual reporters fifteen minutes' warning before the news conference. Fifteen minutes?! The 15 Freeway was closed down as well as parts of other freeways due to the fires that dotted the California landscape that day less than a month ago. California traffic is bad enough on a normal day, let alone when a disaster was happening.

John Philbin was FEMA's external affairs director when the conference happened, but he is no more a part of FEMA. It's a good sign that the man who is being blamed for this has been fired, but more must be done. The news conference required not only Philibin's planning power, but also the compliance of FEMA staffers, cameramen, and anyone else who was aware of what was going on. Massive complicity in the face of obvious wrongdoing is much more dangerous than the schemings of a single man, especially when the truth of a national disaster situation is at stake.

BS Factor:
Ought not to assess it, for...


Or, even worse: