Montreal Police Finally Investigating David Mabus (UPDATE)
(UPDATE)Montreal police have arrested Dennis Markuze.
So it looks like the Montreal authorities are finally taking Dennis Markuze, AKA David Mabus, seriously enough to act. (Thanks, Greg Laden.)
Markuze has spent the last several years spamming the inboxes and comment threads of various and sundry scientists and bloggers. He tends to target skeptical, scientific, and atheist folks, although he's not above assuming guilt by association and firing off some of his well-written and insightful prose verbal effluvia to anyone he finds interacting with his usual targets.
A typical Mabus missive might contain death threats, links to sites he thinks are somehow relevant, healthy doses of vulgarity and profanity, and possibly some random sprinkles of batshit crazy raving. He generally confines himself to cyber-threats, but on at least one occasion he's turned up at a skeptical conference in person. There's quite a bit of concern that he might eventually act on one of his threats.
One of his more >ahem< interesting threats was that he was going to crawl out of the TV and kill my associate Skippy, rather like the evil ghost girl from Ringu.
As it is, that didn't happen.
Mabus is often characterized as a crazy extreme Christian, but I think it's probably more accurate to say that he's a guy with some serious issues who happens to be a Christian.
I hope that the authorities in Montreal are able to build a solid case against DM. He clearly needs some help before he harms someone. There should be no shortage of evidence against him, as many folks have forwarded his messages to the police. (ObDisclosure - my comment and email filters don't let much of his material through. I kept a couple of emails for a while, but deleted them a while ago.)
I'm sure there will be more news to follow as the folks up north conduct their investigation.
-Jay
Biblical Inerrancy
I think this point needs to be more widely understood - it's lost on so many folks.
-Jay
That’s Offensive!
(The following post, or parts of it, have been bouncing around in my head for a couple of weeks. It hasn't come together the way I hoped it would, so I'm putting it out there in the hope of sparking some comment discussion.)
Through some odd coincidence, I've recently had the opportunity to be on both sides of the offended/not offended table.
a couple of weeks back, I rented a copy of a movie that's likely to become a cult favorite - Hobo with a Shotgun.
I'd initially planned to write a review of it, figuring that Rutger Hauer as a shotgun-wielding hobo trying to clean up a corrupt town might be good for some Badgering.
The first, I don't know, 20 minutes were pretty well what I expected. Then it brought in some elements that seemed maybe a bit over the top, and ultimately went down some paths that I found to be grossly unnecessary and just vile.1
While I ultimately did finish Hobo, it came very close to earning a place on my list of Films That I Couldn't Force Myself To Sit Through. That list currently has one entry.2
Now, as it happened, fresh off of my encounter with Hobo, there was some mandatory training at work.
We get a lot of mandatory training, including training on avoiding and preventing sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace. I'd been through this training a few weeks back, but some friends in another department were in a later session. There are some videos that go along with the training, and they're fairly graphic in content and language.
My session showed one of the three. The other two were "suggested", which I interpreted as meaning "optional", so I took the "don't watch them" option.
My friends saw a different one in their session, and chose to watch the others at their desks.
Now, the video they saw in their session was, according to them, useful and appropriate. I have no reason to doubt them on that.
The video that they watched at their desks that I didn't see, they both found inappropriately graphic - to the extent that someone watching similar material at work outside of the context of official training could well have been written up for it. Again, I have no reason to doubt them on that.
The video that all three of us saw is the interesting one. When I watched it, I thought that it was somewhat raw and had some crude language in it, but didn't find it unusually shocking.
They did, and they told me about it quite clearly.3
I'm somewhat ashamed to say that my knee-jerk reaction to their concerns was to think "it didn't really bother me much, so it shouldn't bother them."
I hope that didn't come out in my initial response to them, because if it did, I was a complete assclown.
The fact of the matter is that whether I found the video offensive or not is completely immaterial to whether or not they did. That point took a few minutes to sink in, but part of the reason that it finally did was because my reaction to Hobo was still fresh in my mind. I don't get to declare my perspective to be the correct one simply because it happens to be mine.
As it turns out, the question of whether or not someone finds a particular video (for example)4 offensive isn't even the interesting question. Why someone finds a particular video offensive is more intriguing because discussion of those reasons offers opportunities for people to learn from one another.
It can be a tricky discussion to have, though, because of the all-too-common view that we have some right to not be offended, and if I dare question your offense, I'm guilty of violating that right. Such discussions can easily collapse into arguments and personal attacks.
But you have no more right to not be offended than you have a right to drive around in a brand new red Corvette. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else. That doesn't mean that I have a right to go out of my way to offend you just for the sport of it, or that crudeness and vulgarity should be the norm.
I think that deliberate offensiveness can serve a purpose - witness the cigarette warnings used in Canada - because offensive things can stick in your head whereas milder approaches might not. I also think that it's sometimes a good idea to seek out things that you find offensive and try to understand the other perspective.5
Now, the thing that I'm having trouble with is this: Given that certain things offend me (or you), just how much effort should I put into avoiding those things? Should I go out of my way to avoid them? Should I accept that some level of offensiveness is just a part of life and deal with it? Should I develop a thicker skin? What's an acceptable daily allowance of offense?
Feedback wanted!
-Jay
----------
1It was suggested to me by a colleague that perhaps it was necessary to make the villains in the film extra-reprehensible in order to make a shotgun-toting vigilante vagrant into a more sympathetic character. That's a good point.
2As distinct from the very long list of Films That I Have No Desire To Sit Through Again. That list includes some excellent films, such as The Exorcist, and some not-so-excellent films, such as anything directed by Uwe Boll.
3If there's one thing I can usually count on these two for, it's brutal honesty.
4Or word. Profanity can be a fun topic to discuss. Odds are that you use a somewhat different vocabulary when you're by yourself vice with a group of people, and a different vocabulary if you're in a social situation vice a business setting.
5Politics and religion tend to be the heavy hitters in this scenario. Remember that understanding another perspective doesn't obligate you to agree with it.
Liveblogging The Rapture
So the Rapture is supposed to happen today.
Personally, I don't believe that bit of theo-prophecy, but since I could be wrong, I'm going to keep an eye on things today, and post periodic updates.
0700 - Woke up. Not surprising. Checked news out of Australia, since it's already 2100 in Sydney. No reports of anything unusual. Harold Camping's website is taking too long to respond, so Firefox craps out.
0800 - Still here. News media still hasn't reported anything interesting. Maybe they're keeping things quiet to head off a panic. Wondering whether I should bother cutting the grass this evening. Camping's website still fails to load. Probably because a bunch of other skeptical yahoos got up before I did and are overloading their servers. Getting ready to run some errands.
0808 - Heard a loud thump upstairs. Just the cat jumping off the bathroom counter. Whew!
0900 - Dropped the elder child off at school for an activity. The doors we were told would be open were locked, causing momentary concern. Turns out we needed to go to the other side of the building.
1005 - Camping's site still won't load. I wonder if he's checking his math yet...
1150 - Rapture or not, I need some lunch. Nobody at Panera seems worried. Harold Camping, are you out there? You need to explain what's (not) going on!
1250 - Surely all of the roadkill possums and raccoons I've seen today are a sign of something...
1501 - As commenter Skippy points out, at least one of Camping's sites is up, but it's conspicuously void of any useful information. I'm thinking that perhaps there were some misunderstandings about Camping's true message. Perhaps he wasn't talking about the Rapture at all. Perhaps he was talking about something else...
And honestly, using packs of these critters to cull the wicked would probably make a pretty convincing statement...
1800 - Nothing. Not a bloody thing. Just a bit overcast. And now word is starting to get out that Camping and his organization are gearing up to admit failure, or may have already. That's in contrast to their earlier absolute certainty.
A key lesson here: in the long history of human endeavor, no activity has such a spectacularly consistent record of total failure as end-of-the-world prediction.
Another important lesson: think very carefully before you pin your plans to the speculations and claims of doomsayers like Harold Camping. Ask yourself - is it more likely that he finally got it right, or that he's just using Stupid Math Tricks to support his claims.
-Jay
Tick Tock… (UPDATED)
It is a little over a month before Judgment Day, according to Harold Camping1.
Earlier this month, followers of Camping put a couple of billboards similar to this one on the main road I drive to get to work. This is one of them:
Camping is a kook. There's really no more polite way of saying it. He previously predicted that the end of the world would occur on September 6, 1994, which it clearly didn't. Camping's excuse, presumably given on September 7, 1994, was that he'd made a math error. I suspect he'll have a similar excuse on May 22.
Here, from Wikipedia, is a version of Camping's "proof":
- According to Camping, the number five equals "atonement", the number ten equals "completeness", and the number seventeen equals "heaven".
- Christ is said to have hung on the cross on April 1, 33 AD. The time between April 1, 33 AD and April 1, 2011 is 1,978 years.
- If 1,978 is multiplied by 365.2422 days (the number of days in a solar year, not to be confused with the lunar year), the result is 722,449.
- The time between April 1 and May 21st is 51 days.
- 51 added to 722,449 is 722,500.
- (5 x 10 x 17)2 or (atonement x completeness x heaven)2 also equals 722,500.
This isn't so much a proof as it is Camping pulling some numbers out of his ass and fiddling with them until he comes up with a date that he thinks fits. Where did he get the idea that "atonement x completeness x heaven" is the key to anything? Why square the product of those numbers? What about the numbers 7 and 12? You can't swing a dead cat in the Bible and not hit the numbers 7 and 12 somewhere. Given a little time and creativity, I have no doubt that Camping (or some other enterprising doomsayer) could come up with a superficially interesting "proof" to peg Judgment Day at just about any date they wanted to. (Really, anyone who tries to extract a hard date for the end of the world out of the Bible is pulling numbers out of thin air. No human endeavor has such a consistent history of spectacular and invariable failure as Bible-based end-times prediction. Refer to the books by Johnathan Kirsch and Sharan Newman that I linked to here.)
Some writers have compared Camping to a cult leader, in that he's telling his followers to abandon their existing churches and join his movement. I can see some validity in the comparison, and in clips of his sermons and radio call-in show, he comes across as very authoritarian and refuses to acknowledge that he might be wrong. The few comments I've read from his followers suggest that they've bought into his claims completely, and have internalized the view that if they're still here on May 22, it's because they weren't good enough, not because Camping is a batshit-crazy lunatic, and that sort of blind devotion to the leader's pronouncements is a common feature in cults.
What's not clear at all is how those people will respond when they are here on May 22 and nothing magical has happened. Maybe they'll all re-set and get ready for October 21. Maybe they'll realize that Camping is just a religiously deluded old man and try to regain something of their previous lives. Or maybe not.
I sincerely hope they don't do anything rash.
-Jay
----------
1Camping predicts Judgment Day for May 21, 2011, and the actual end of the world on October 21, 2011. Not that the distinction makes Camping's ravings any more credible, but I wanted to point it out in the interest of accuracy.




