cowardice

The latest pop fad in the (pseudo?)scientific “resistance” movement is to set up “alt” or “rogue” Twitter accounts, then claim scientific credibility in the role of some anonymous knight in shining armor. Well, here was one example, and my open and public response on Twitter.

Muzzling of scientists is wrong, and I have expressed that concern many times on many fora. However, these fake Twitter accounts strike me as misguided (at a minimum) for many reasons, the biggest among them being trust. That is the over-arching issue and here are some specifics behind it:

Hand in hand with trust goes authenticity. A fake EPA, NOAA, NPS or other pseudo-governmental account, by its very nature, is inauthentic!

How do we KNOW that the people behind the accounts are who they say they are? They could be anybody, current or former employee, disgruntled grudge-holder, complete and total poser with no connection, maybe even a false-flag operative (more below). Anonymity undermines credibility.

Many of these accounts are mixing in politics and social issues with science. That also undermines their credibility. Stick to the science if your account claims to be scientific. Otherwise you’re behaving no differently than some dweeb in a basement pretending to be someone else.

Spelling, grammar, usage, and other English writing errors are powerful indicators of questionable credibility or complete inauthenticity.

The snarky attitudes and tangential posts of some of these “alt” and “rogue” accounts only can undermine the causes of the legitimate accounts.

Plenty of degreed, real-world scientists are standing behind their names and saying what they want to say. I always do. So can others. So can you. Therefore these accounts serve little practical purpose but to deliberately annoy and irritate, while satiating some desire to vent, and/or to masturbate one’s own ego to the thrill of sycophantic adulation from the like-minded.

Who is held accountable for inaccurate statements made from these accounts, and how?

What if some of these are false-flag accounts run by people building name lists of opposition? Whoa … … … bet you didn’t think of that possibility, did you? Hmmm…better think twice. In this crazy world, you can’t rule that out either.

Courage necessarily involves taking risk. The following I mention, not to brag, but to establish personal credibility in this subject for those who don’t know me. For over 25 years, I have been speaking out on the Internet about many issues in my science (as well as otherwise), both here in this BLOG since 2005 and in stand-alone HTML web pages before that. I do so on my own time and equipment, not on the job, which keeps it all legal and untouchable under Amendment 1, United States Constitution.

My name is Roger Edwards in Norman, OK, and I take full credit and blame for everything I post, including this. Look for yourself, both in this BLOG’s archives and in those web pages. I have spoken out openly about it all — not hiding behind fake identities in a timorous fashion. I have criticized Republicans and Democrats alike, including our current President, who has been both at various times in his life. All those pages are still there, and so are those BLOG entries. I stand firmly and resolutely behind all of them as they were written based on the insights I had at the time, and get this: with my true identity attached. I have the guts to stand behind my ideals, back down from no one, and suffer no fools. Let that set an example.

If you are a government scientist, and you want to speak your opinions on anything in particular, the solution is clear: keep your opinions off official social-media accounts. That’s not what they’re for anyway. They’re for official business. Do not use official time and equipment to express your concerns — only to express the science itself that’s relevant to that account. If you are punished for doing it by the letter of the rule, fight that through all available legal means!

For opinionated activity: use your own personal accounts and equipment, and do so unfettered. Say what is on your mind. The First Amendment applies to all of us, and does not contain the words, “except” or “unless”. Could you be hated? Sure. Could trolls say mean things? You bet — grow a thick skin and deal with it. Could you be passed up for a grant or promotion? Yes, butt-hurt bureaucrats can and do act like that, and sometimes will retaliate in unprovable ways. I know, I’ve been there. We just have to be ready, even though it’s wrong and we don’t like it. That’s the price we pay for having convictions and the courage to express and act upon them.

If you are a media member, you owe it to journalistic integrity to verify your sources and the information they provide, independently. Journalism 101…never, ever, ever take someone simply at their word. That’s the fastest way to undermine your own credibility and that of your employer, as I also have discussed openly and publicly on this BLOG for the world to see. Vet your sources and their information, thoroughly — and yes, that takes time. So be it. Better to get it right than get it first!

If someone doesn’t have the guts to put their name on the line, to stand behind their claims, that’s just so much cowardice and hollow posturing with no credibility or authenticity to back it up. The greatest measure of the importance of your ideals is in your willingness to stand behind them with your real identity.

The good:

* More innocents weren’t maimed or killed.

* Thousands of people have rallied to the aid and support of the victims, their families, and the city of Boston through prayers, donations, moral and logistic support, messages of love and kinship, and assorted other tangible and intangible expressions of caring. This is one way that goodness rises from the ashes of evil, as God has shown time and time again. As Americans, we cross ideological and party lines to do this, out of concern and love.

* The two front-line Islamist terrorists were caught. Granted, one of the brothers was lost–either to the younger brother’s penchant for bad driving under stress or to police driving and shooting, depending on which “he said, she said” story that you choose to believe. Either way, 1/2 of the Islamist terrorist pair who appears to have performed the bombing is dead and won’t be continuing to cost taxpayers any more money, except for the disposal of his currently unwanted body.

* Except for one particularly vile aspect of their work that turned out to be completely unnecessary (see below), police and FBI did an amazing job at locating and capturing the younger brother alive, with the help of a concerned and observant citizen.

The bad:

* Living victims, and the friends and families of both those living and dead, will be dealing with the aftereffects for many years. We’ve seen this here in central Oklahoma as a consequence of the 1995 Murrah building bombing. The hard times will persist for some folks many years after the news moves on through the next ten thousand events.

* According to the Boston Herald and other sources, the older of the Islamist terrorists was mooching off his brainwashed, overworked, abused wife and taxpayers’ welfare support–all while in an official, classified “Terrorist Identities” database. Something is very wrong with this picture.

* What, exactly, is going on with Abdul-rahman Al-Harbi (the “now he’s deported, now he’s not” Saudi-of-interest in the bombing)? This is bizarre! And it’s being woefully uncovered by most mainstream media that is utterly failing to demand answers. The Fourth Estate is abdicating its responsibility to hold government fully accountable…again.

* Spineless, pandering Obama refuses to call this exactly what it is: Islamist terrorism. That is a complete chickensh_t stance. Just once, I’d like to hear him be duly blunt, to have the cojones to call out the faith of his ancestors–directly, forthrightly and unambiguously–for the carnage it is causing in the world and the wretched oppression of women and “infidels” it is performing today. Not 200 or 500 or 900 years ago…but today…right now. Beheadings, bombings, “honor” killings, mutilation of female parts, extreme inequality and subjugation of women in all respects, stonings, killings of numerous Christians and other “infidels”, on and on — right here in the 21st century and on worldwide scale!

The ugly:

* Some folks were killed or severely maimed. This is ugliest of all, and as a red-blooded American dad, it infuriates me that among those killed and maimed were little children.

* Police and FBI unconstitutionally barged into homes without warrants and violated a litany of citizens’ civil rights. Again, it’s good they caught the Islamist terrorists; however, they did not need to go to illegal (i.e. unconstitutional) extremes to do so. The hunt for them did and does not justify their egregious violations of Constitutional rights of innocent citizens–namely 4th (search and seizure) and 1st (right to peaceful assembly) Amendments. They shut down a large swath of a major metro area, barged into houses without warrants, and unconstitutionally ordered people to stay in their homes for a single gun-toting teenager? It’s a good thing one citizen went outside his home to check his boat.

* Illegal home invasions by authorities are just a small taste of what is to come, I suspect, in an ever-growing police state that is buying up ammo and weapons faster than can be manufactured. What happened to civil liberties in Boston strongly resembles martial law. For the most part, statists and liberals are ignoring this inconvenient truth. If this causes you no concern, fine…keep your head in the sand and keep bleating like sheep the usual straw-men about “conspiracy theorists”. I’ve offered no conspiracies–just observations. These things happened. Ignore that only if you don’t value your liberty.