Freaking out over bioterrorism?

Over the last few days, the sensationalist media attempted to paint a picture of bioterror attack on a college campus. A student at UT Austin found a white, clumpy substance in a roll of coins and reported it to authorities. This substance was supposedly tested by a local lab as "positive" for the toxic substance Ricin. Mainstream media outlets trumped headlines such as "Ricin discovered in Texas dorm"
Now, after the machine of homeland security and the FBI had gotten involved, it appears all this was a case of a false positive test - the sample of white gunk was not ricin after all, just the usual white gunk that probably collects in dorm rooms throughout this country.
Lost in all this freaking out is a simple, critical question - how reliable is the test for Ricin? Could the test result be a false positive? Why didn't the media even mention that the test for this substance could have been a false positive?
For those following the fear and sensationalism surrounding the United States invasion of Iraq, you might recall false and misleading stories of Ricin found in Iraq training camps for terrorists. MSNBC broke an "exclusive" and utterly shameless story highlighting the discovery of ricin and botulinum toxins from a boot with white gunk on the sole that was taken from a camp in Iraq. A lab had tested a swab of this gunk and was tested with almost "100% certainty".
We in America need to be more critical. Any test, no matter how great, is subject to failure to detect or false detections - what are called false negatives and false positives.
The real question that arises is why don't we have a reliable test to detect Ricin? After the billions being spent on homeland security, we can't even tell if we're dealing with an agent of bioterror or harmless gunk in a dorm room?!
Too bad our questionless society appears to only revel in sensationalist fear rather than reasoned inquiry into such matters.

Wikipedia - a modern day oracle or podium of propaganda?

Wikipedia is fast becoming a destination for those in search of information. The premise behind this public encyclopedia on the Web is that anyone can edit entries on topics. By opening the door to collective editing, one would expect the benefit of a broad spectrum of knowledge, coalescing to provide a fairly comprehensive and unbiased view.
The reality of things might fall short of this utopian vision.
A few particular entries I have recently perused seem to highlight the risks of creating an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Look at the entries under the Bible and the Koran. A quick reading shows nary a critical word of these books in the Wikipedia entries. Furthermore, efforts to include links such as the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, the Brick Testament and Skeptic's Annotated Koran are often quickly erased from memory.
It appears that man's selfish motives are reflected in the censoring behavior of those who would deny any critical word towards a religious text. I guess the founders of Wikipedia didn't consider what might happen if you allow free and open access to edit your encyclopedia, and such an endeavor is overrun by religious zealots who hover over their respective religious entries and erase in Orwellian fashion any critical words that might bring a sense of reality to their faiths.
Apparently, religious ideologues are not the only ones guilty of such actions - political ideologues have apparently taken to scrubbing critical comments of politicians they wish to defend.
It is sad to see the potential of an effort such as Wikipedia scuttled by ideologues who behave more like Communist dictators of old in scrubbing any facts that are deemed offensive to their views.

What would America be like if ....

On my commute to work, I decided to keep count of how many churches I drive past. The count is 7. Some of these churches are within blocks of each other.
Now, as a thought experiment, I would wonder what America would be like if we replaced each of these churches with a library. What if we replaced each pastor with a librarian? What kind of an America would we live in if people went to the library with the same fervor and diligence as they do their churches, and projected the same reverence given their pastors to their librarians?
I would expect a more learned and critical American populace, one where critical thinking flourishes and is not suppressed, one where scholarship and learning for learning's sake, not just for the sake of passing a test, takes root. One where we begin to elect leaders not based on spin and likeability, but on facts, knowledge, and leadership ability. One where we can tell the difference between opportunity and opportunism.
Secularism is the way to progress, while holding on to the falsehoods of organized religion would take back thousands of years of progress.

The Intolerance of Islam Revealed Again

The Danish government and the world is witness again to the intolerance that is inherent to the Islamic faith.
After publishing caricatures depicting the prophet Muhammed, the Danish government, and the EU in general, is facing a backlash from Muslim communities throughout the world, with violent protests at many sites.
Anyone could have predicted this. Muslims have no ability to accept satire, mockery, or other criticism of their faith and their prophet. Anyone remember Salman Rushdie or Theo Van Gogh? The later individual paid with his life for using film to bring to light the sexism and abuse of women that Islam fosters.
One might ask, why is Islam so intolerant to such critiques and insults?
The answer lies in the faith itself - reading the Koran, one can see just how intolerant and horrible this religion is. Also, given the Muslims view of the Koran as the inerrant word of Allah/God leaves no room for criticism of what is written in its pages.
Such reactions such as this, as well as from other faiths of the world, should be a wake up call to the violence that is generated by religion. To step towards peace, we must first embrace secularism, walking away from absolute falsehoods and towards reason.

Bush's Folly in Iraq

After hearing yesterday's State of the Union address by George W. Bush, one would think he has a clear and successful strategy to win the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Through a reality based lens, however, such faith based distortions become quite clear.
To really succeed in Iraq, we need several things:
First is to attain the moral high ground in this war. To do this, we need to swiftly acknowledge our mistakes and make amends for outrages such as the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal - courtmarshal and bring to justice any military member or Pentagon staffer or executive branch official who helped contribute to such an outcome.
Second is to control the insurgency rather than have the insurgency control us. Currently, we have far too few troops to effectively suppress the insurgency in Iraq. We either need to increase our own troop presence, or ask the world for help in this matter.
Third is to encourage secularism over the Islamic faith. Though President Bush claims that Islam is a "noble faith", the reality is that Islam, and its holy book the Koran, is filled with violent imagery, intolerant ideas, and oppression of women. Anyone can see this for themselves at the Skeptic's Annotated Koran. True freedom cannot take root under the oppression of a backward and intolerant faith.
Fourth is to ensure the safety of the average Iraqi - including offering reliable utilities like electricity and running water, as well as personal security so that no Iraqi has to live in fear of being shot, kidnapped, or blown to bits by a terrorist attack.
Fifth, we need to really go after Al-Qaeda. Our failure to bring Osama Bin Laden and other top Al-Qaeda operatives to justice, years after the 9/11 attacks will remain an inspiration and rallying cry to would-be terrorists throughout the world. When you're trying to kill a snake, you have to crush its head, not try to take out a few scales. A definitive capture or death of Osama and all the other Al-Qaeda leadership would send a clear message to anyone wishing to join this organization or copy its goals. In short, the war on terror is about Osama, stupid!