Breaking news: scientists once again don't discover Atlantis

Geology buffs probably heard about the announcement last week of the discovery off the coast of Brazil of a large slab of granite.  It's a geological anomaly; granite doesn't form in the deep ocean.  It's associated with silica-rich magma that cooled slowly, underground.  Granite forms the most abundant "basement rock" of continents, and most of it is very, very old.  This piece seems to have been left behind as Africa and South America split when the Atlantic Ocean opened 160 million years ago, and was completely covered with water ten million years ago.

So far, a story that would be of interest only to those intrigued by oddities of plate tectonics.  So, of course, the media can't report it that way.  Let's see... block of rock off the coast of South America, once above water, now not...

I know!  Let's report that the scientists have discovered Atlantis!

Don't believe me?  Check out how HuffPost's Meredith Bennett-Smith trashed this story, opening with the following highly scientific paragraph:

Nearly 2,600 years after Greek philosopher Plato wrote about the fabled metropolis of Atlantis, vanished forever beneath the sea, a Japanese-manned submersible has discovered rock structures that may be evidence of a continent that similarly disappeared beneath the Atlantic Ocean many, many years ago.

Yes, Ms. Bennett-Smith, 2,600 years and ten million years are both many, many years.  How very astute of you.  But let me clarify something for you: this is not Atlantis.  I know this for sure, because Atlantis was fictional.

RT went even further, heading their article with the following image:

Two of the scientists, Shinichi Kawakami and Roberto Ventura Santos, put fuel on the fire by referring to the block of rock as "Atlantis" when they spoke to reporters.  Santos evidently felt some trepidation about this (which he should have), and added, "We speak of Atlantis more in terms of symbolism.  Obviously, we don’t expect to find a lost city in the middle of the Atlantic."

Really, Dr. Santos?  Then don't refer to the damn thing as Atlantis.

So, of course, now all of the woo-woos are having multiple orgasms over this "scientific proof" that Atlantis existed, as advertised, complete with cities and people and everything else described in Plato.  By this morning, we have ha-ha-we-told-you-so articles appearing in The Truthseeker,  The Controversial Files, Before It's News, The Hollow Earth Insider, and Godlike Productions, not to mention hundreds of theoretically more reliable news sources.  Although a handful of them mentioned Santos' wishy-washy disclaimer, most of them burbled on and on about Plato and the fabled island of the philosopher-kings, because that's clearly more valid than the actual science.

Let's get this straight.  Ten million years ago, when the last bit of this continent went beneath the Atlantic Ocean, our nearest ancestors were chimp-like anthropoid apes somewhere in Africa.  The earliest Australopithecenes didn't evolve until about four million years ago, and considering their brainpower, I'm doubtful that even they were "philosopher-kings."  And by that time, this block of continental granite had already been sunk for six million years.

This isn't Atlantis.  Atlantis never existed.  It's a folk tale, a myth, a legend with no basis whatsoever in fact.

Of course, I don't expect this to convince anyone who wasn't already convinced.  Especially because they have pictures.

Okay, I'll stop now, because my forehead hurts from all of the headdesks I did while researching this post.  I've got to chill out a little, because if I keep digging into this stuff I'll run across someone who claims that they found Shangri-La in Nepal and the remains of Minas Tirith in Bulgaria, and at that point I'll just take Ockham's Razor and slit my wrists with it.

A shot in the arm

The website of the World Health Organization states it this way: "Immunization is one of the most successful and cost-effective health interventions and prevents between 2 and 3 million deaths every year."  UNICEF places the lives saved at closer to 9 million, and states that "vaccines have brought seven major human diseases under some degree of control - smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, yellow fever, whooping cough, polio, and measles."

The members of my family understand the impact vaccination has had all too well.  My grandfather's only full sister, and his eldest half-sister, died five days apart of measles at the ages of 22 and 17; and my mother had polio as a child, stunting the growth in one leg and leaving her with a permanent limp.  (Still, my mom was one of the lucky ones; less fortunate polio survivors ended up partially paralyzed and spent the rest of their lives in an iron lung.)

Vaccination, however, has been increasingly under attack, with spurious claims linking vaccines to everything from autism to allergies.  This, despite the fact that repeated controlled studies have found vaccines to be safe and effective, and despite the "studies" linking vaccines to negative health effects having been roundly discredited.

Even with all of this, there's still a scare campaign going on that "Big Pharma" is secretly trying to kill you every time you get a shot.  Just last year, we saw Stephanie Messenger's book Melanie's Marvelous Measles published, and it's still available on Amazon despite 147 (out of 200) one-star reviews:

In it, we get to read about little Melanie, who is just delighted to get measles so she can "heal naturally."  The book, Messenger says, "was written to educate children on the benefits of having measles and how you can heal from them naturally and successfully."  Even worse is The Mother magazine, which in its March/April issue had an article that stated that "Measles will only develop in a body that is low on vitamin A," and suggests eating more carrots as a preventative.  We are also told that "people don't die of measles -- they die of medical mismanagement of the fever."

Too bad my Aunt Anne and Aunt Emelie didn't know about all this, isn't it?

Unfortunately, though, the anti-vaxxer nonsense has caught on, based in equal parts on fear, a poor understanding of science, a sneaking sense of suspicion about the ethics of medical/pharmaceutical corporations, and a large dose of the naturalistic fallacy.  Most recently, the whole issue has hit Canada, where just yesterday the British Columbia Medical Journal released, in its May issue, an article stating that Health Canada has just granted license to "homeopathic vaccines" called "nosodes" -- and yes, they are the usual homeopathy bullshit, made from substances diluted past Avogadro's limit, which are therefore pure water.  Nevertheless, Health Canada saw fit to give their stamp of approval to "nosodes" for influenza, measles, pertussis, and polio, despite its stated mission to "(test) products for safety and efficacy before allowing them to enter the market."

So now, we don't just have people avoiding vaccines, we have them taking fake vaccines.

And we're beginning to see the effects of this foolishness.  Wales is still recovering from a measles outbreak that sickened 700 people last month, resulting in at least one death.  Two days ago, the BBC ran a story that states that "Levels of vaccination have been too low in some countries, particularly in rich western European nations...  Experts said it was not too late to hit the target, but 'extraordinary' effort was needed."  The WHO and other medical oversight groups are concerned that in many places, we have dropped below the levels needed for herd immunity, the number of immune individuals needed in a population to prevent the disease from catching hold.  Once that happens, epidemiologists warn, an epidemic is almost certain to occur.

It's hard to combat all of this.  Prominent voices like Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy have spent enormous amounts of time, energy, and money sowing suspicion and drawing false correlations, and once you've activated the fear module in people's minds it's almost impossible to repair the damage.  Doctors are said to be hand-in-glove with corporate interests; skeptics like me are seen as shills or dupes.  If the government itself forces its citizens' choices -- compulsory vaccination programs for school attendance, for example -- it is claimed to be infringing on rights.  When epidemics occur, as in Wales this year, it causes a brief flurry of activity, but once the survivors recover, most people forget about it.  The fear remains that the anti-vaxxers are right -- perhaps the epidemic would have occurred anyway, even if everyone had been vaccinated, and then maybe there would have been all of these cases of autism to contend with.

Here, have a carrot.

I wish I had a good suggestion regarding what to do about all of this.  While I'm all for personal freedom, I really wish governments would step in and say, "Look, I'm sorry you have fallen for pseudoscientific superstition.  That's unfortunate for you.  Roll up your sleeve, please."  If this happened in enough places, maybe we could eradicate measles and polio, the way we eradicated smallpox in 1980.  While getting rid of diseases like the flu, which affect other mammals as well as humans, is unlikely, we could certainly get further along in stopping or slowing down epidemics.

Think of the human suffering this would eliminate, and the lives it would save.

Maybe it's time to apply some science and rationality, here, and not succumb to fear tactics, fallacious thinking, specious claims, and the "research" of outright frauds.  Wouldn't that be marvelous?

Sylvia Browne and the house of cards

Now, first of all, let me state up front that I know that science isn't perfect.

Scientists, after all, are only human.  They sometimes make mistakes, misinterpret data, come to the wrong conclusions.  A (fortunately) small number of them, for a variety of reasons, are dishonest and falsify results.

But science, as a whole, is pretty damn good at self-correcting.  The whole edifice is set up to facilitate it.  Even after a paper has run the gauntlet of peer review and has been published, it's read and questioned by researchers in the same field.  This makes it really tough to get away with "bad science" -- the outright frauds seem mostly to get caught in short order, and the resulting hue and cry by their colleagues makes it nearly certain they'll never receive a grant again.  Consider Hisashi Moriguchi, the Japanese stem-cell researcher who was discredited last year because of irregularities in his research protocol and reporting of results.  Consider Anil Potti, medical researcher for Duke University, fired in 2010 for padding his resumé and falsifying data.  Most famous, consider Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, who destroyed their own careers in 1989 with false claims to have discovered "cold fusion."

Not pleasant stories, to be sure.  It's never fun to watch someone sow the seeds of his or her own downfall.   But in losing grant money, research and publication opportunities, and status, we have at least to admit that justice was served.

Now, let's turn to the case of Sylvia Browne.

Browne, as you probably know, is a self-professed psychic.  She's also filthy rich.  Browne charges $700 for a half-hour psychic reading on the phone, and has a waiting list that extends for years.  She does her dog-and-pony show for packed houses, selling tickets for over a hundred dollars each.  Along the way, she has told thousands of people details about their lives, and given them information about their dead relatives, giving some people hope... and destroying the hopes of others.

In the latter category was Louwanna Miller, who was told on a talk show in 2004 that her kidnapped daughter, Amanda Berry, was dead.  "I see her in water... She's not alive, honey," were Browne's exact words.  Miller was devastated, as you might expect -- and died, heartbroken, in 2006, never knowing that her daughter was still alive.  Most of you, I'm sure, have heard by now about the spectacular escape of Berry and two others, Michelle Knight and Gina DeJesus, from the clutches of three brothers in Cleveland who had held the three girls captive for ten years.

Browne's only response?  She took down her Facebook page.

What's more interesting, however, is the response from other psychics.  So far it has been: silence.  This morning I checked websites and blogs that give publicity to these charlatans, and no one is even mentioning Browne's name.

• The latest story at Unexplained Mysteries: "New Bird Flu Strains Created In Lab."
• At Ghosts and Ghouls: "Spirits at Bobby Mackey's Music World."
• At Phantoms and Monsters: "Alien Agenda: Implants, Tumors, and Transmitted Diseases."
• At Paranormal Phenomena:  "Mysterious Orbs, Sasquatch Language, Humanoid Creature."
• At Unknown Country:  "Death Researcher Challenging Science on Resurrection and the Soul."
• At Paranormal News: "Mind Controlled Sex Slaves and the CIA."
• At National Paranormal Association:  "400 People on 1 Ghost Hunt, and Credibility Goes Out the Window."
• At San Diego Paranormal Research:  "Former Senator Mike Gravel and a Panel of Experts Says White House Suppressing Evidence of ETs."

And so forth and so on.

C'mon, psychics, why no mention of Browne?  Could it be that you're afraid that stating outright that she's a fraud will call into question the whole filthy lucrative game you're all playing?

What Browne did is reprehensible.  She is a swindler, a con artist, a master cold reader who takes money from people so vulnerable from grief or loneliness that they do not have the wherewithal to see what she's up to.  But by their response -- or lack thereof -- the rest of the psychic world is equally culpable.  Even if you have no intention to retract your own claims of ESP, you should call out Sylvia Browne for having failed, spectacularly, and at least lay claim to a few square inches of honor and fair play.

But I'm not expecting it to happen.  It's highly unlikely that anyone living in this fragile house of cards will do anything that might lead to its collapse.  And because of this, I'll make a prediction of the future of my own.

After a quiet period in which she lays low, Sylvia Browne's career, unlike that of the fallen scientists, will be reborn like a phoenix from the ashes.  She will croak her phony prophecies to packed auditoriums once more.  The cash will start to flow in again.  And she and the other self-proclaimed psychics -- James van Praagh, Psychic Sally Morgan, Derek Acorah, Ingo Swann -- will continue to defraud people, world without end, amen.

The "honey trap," perception, and our sense of self

I think the human brain is fascinating.  Not a surprising statement, I suppose, coming from someone who teaches (amongst other things) an introductory neurology course.  What intrigues me most, though, is the way all of this rock-solid sense of self we all have -- the sum of our perceptions, attitudes, experiences, and memories -- is the result of a bunch of chemicals jittering around in 1.3 kilograms of skull-glop, and an electrical output that would only be sufficient to illuminate a twenty-watt light bulb.

And if that's not humbling enough, our personalities may not be as rock-solid as all that.  If something changes the chemistry or the pattern of electrical firings in your brain, who you are and what you experience changes.  As my long-ago physiology professor said, "In a very real way, your brain is the only sensory organ you have.  If your brain gets tricked, that is what you think you've seen, or heard, or felt."

It works all the way up to the level of our emotions and personality, too -- realms of the human experience that are supposed to be somehow "different."  Okay, we can accept it when a drug makes you hallucinate; that's just the brain's neural firings being altered.  But our attitudes, biases, preferences, emotional reactions -- no, that's something else entirely.  Those are all part of this "me" that is independent of the "meat machine" in my skull, this spiritual entity that is separate from mere biochemistry, a personal being that can well be imagined going on after the animal part dies.

Right?

Eight scientists in the Department of Human Environment Studies at Kyushu University in Japan have just punched another hole in this belief, with a paper that appeared in Nature last week entitled, "Minocycline, a microglial inhibitor, reduces 'honey trap' risk in human economic exchange."  In this study, Motoki Watabe et al. had observed that minocycline, a tetracycline-derivative antibiotic, had not only been useful for fighting infections but had led to improvement in psychological disorders in patients who were taking it.  In particular, taking minocycline seemed to improve patient's capacity for "sober decision-making."  So the group at Kyushu University decided to see if they could pinpoint what, exactly, was changing in the brain of a person on minocycline.

The results were, to say the least, eye-opening.

It's long been known that human males tend to trust physically attractive females, sometimes leading to their betrayal -- a tendency called the "honey trap" that has been used as a plot twist in hundreds of thrillers, all the way back to Milady Winter and d'Artagnan in The Three Musketeers.

Well, the "honey trap" response vanishes in men on minocycline.

The men in the experiment were split into two groups -- one group got the antibiotic, the others a placebo.  None knew which they'd gotten:

In this experiment, 98 healthy males played a trust game with 8 photographed young females after a 4-day oral treatment course of either minocycline or placebo. Looking at a picture showing a female's face, male players decided how much out of 1300 yen (approximately 13 USD) they would give to each female. Males then evaluated how trustworthy each female was and how physically attractive she was using a 11-point Likert Scale (0: Not at all – 10: Perfectly so). Of note, all of the photographed females had actually decided, in advance, to choose ‘betray’ against the male players. Therefore, male participants played with untrustworthy female partners, but were unaware of the deception.

Overwhelmingly, the men who were in the control group showed a strong correlation between rating a woman as highly attractive and being trustworthy; the group on minocycline showed no such correlation.  They recognized attractiveness, ranking some photographs as more attractive than others; but they ranked all of the women as about equal in trustworthiness.

A much more reasonable response, given that they all were strangers!

Watabe et al. suggested that this indicates a role in cognition for the microglia -- cells that heretofore were thought mostly to mediate the brain's immune defense system and blood/brain barrier, and which are inhibited by minocycline.  Me, I'm more intrigued by the larger issue, that who we are, the central core of our personalities, might be far more dependent on minor changes in brain chemistry than most of us are comfortable admitting.

It's also why I have a hard time accepting the idea that the visions experienced by people on dimethyltryptamine (DMT) actually mean anything, in the spiritual sense.  People on DMT report overwhelming hallucinations that were "spiritually transforming," in which they had the sense of being connected with "higher mind" -- i.e., with god.  Terrence McKenna, one of the primary exponents of the use of this drug for inducing spiritual experiences, describes one of his trips this way:

(Y)ou, when you're shown one of these things, a single one of them, you look at it an you know, without a shadow of a doubt, in the moment of looking at this thing, that if it were right here, right now, this world would go mad.  It's like something from another dimension.  It's like an artifact from a flying saucer. It's like something falling out of the mind of God - such objects DO not exist in this universe, and yet, you're looking at it.  [Source]

My problem with all of this is not some kind of moralistic "don't do that stuff to your body," nor is it even a concern for the side effects; it's more that the whole thing strikes me as kind of... silly.  If you throw a monkey wrench into your neurotransmitters, of course you're going to see weird shit.  Acting as if what you're seeing has some sort of external reality seems to me to be a major stretch, landing us right into the weird world of such wingnuts as Carlos Castañeda with his datura root and magic mushrooms as a means of contacting the "ally."

I know, however, that we're also getting perilously close to a topic I touched briefly on a few weeks ago, namely, how we can prove that anything outside our experiences is real.  And I've no desire to skate out onto that philosophical thin ice once again.  But I do think that the scientists in Japan have given yet another blow to our sense of having some kind of permanent external "self" that is independent of our biology.  If all it takes is an antibiotic tablet to change who we trust, it seems that we are, on a fundamental level, what our brain chemistry is at the moment -- and not very much else.

Wanted: one healthy individual. Must look... appetizing.

In the last week, we've dealt with such issues as how to prevent charlatans from defrauding the public, the role of religion in society, and the breakdown of the American educational system.  Today, we turn to a much more important topic, to wit: you can earn $1,000 if you're willing to fly to Brazil and be human bait for an evil water monster.

I'm not making this up, and you can read the story here.  A group called ACAM, which near as I could tell, translates to "Association of Haunting Hunters of Mariana," is trying to capture a creature called the "Caboclo of the Water" that has been "conducting attacks in the region for years."  The last victim was a boy who "had his testicles pulled... while swimming."

Not the most pleasant thing that can happen to a male while having a nice skinnydip.  I can see how local guys might want to get rid of the thing.

If you're willing to do your part to try to capture the Caboclo, though, you'll have to get in line.  They already have one volunteer, one Daniel Pinto, age 37, who is going to give it his best shot.  Apparently the idea is that Pinto is going to spend the night in a half-submerged cage apparatus that has two openings -- one on the side, through which the Caboclo is supposed to enter, and one on top, affording Pinto the opportunity to escape so that he doesn't get eaten.  When Pinto opens the top hatch, the bottom one will automatically slam closed, trapping the Caboclo.

I should probably mention that Pinto will be accompanied in the cage by a goat, because "the creature has a predilection for the species," and that the water will be scented with a "bovine-based blood product."

Sounds like a terrible way to spend an evening, even considering that you get a thousand bucks for doing it.

People will do amazingly foolhardy things for money, though, and it may be that you are still interested in the opportunity.  But before you sign up to go to Brazil for a chance to be the next Caboclo bait (assuming Pinto doesn't succeed, which seems probable), perhaps you should know two more things.  (1) ACAM makes you sign a waiver that they are held harmless if you get eaten, and (2) the Caboclo looks like a "mixture of chicken, lizard, and monkey," which sounds funny until you see an artist's rendition:

I'd be a poor choice for Caboclo bait, because if I was in a cage and a thing like this came through the door, I wouldn't be able to activate the escape hatch because I would have pissed my pants and then had a stroke.  So I'm thinking I'm not going to apply for the job.

If you'd prefer, now that you've seen what the thing looks like, not to risk your life in a waterlogged cage with a goat to capture it, you may still want to go to Brazil, however.  ACAM states that the region is not only the home to the Caboclo, it is also "infested" by many other entities, including "the Bride of Furquim, the Lambizome Bigfoot, (and) the Knight of Lent."  I wasn't able to find out any details on any of these, but they do sound intriguing, although it must be a pain in the ass to have so many different monsters hanging around the place.

In any case, it's nice to know that other countries have their own versions of America's "squatchers."  Like ours, they seem to take the whole thing pretty seriously.  And I'm always in favor of a scientific approach, even if the great likelihood is that the Caboclo doesn't exist.  Who knows?  Maybe they'll have better luck than Melba Ketchum, who announced last month that she was still trying to prove Bigfoot's existence through DNA analysis despite the fiasco that resulted from her first attempt.  And as I've said more than once, no one would be happier than me if some bizarre, quasi-anthropoid creature was captured for study by science.  It would be cool to have at least one claim by the cryptozoology crew proven correct, given that their batting average thus far is zero.

As long as I don't have to be the bait.  I'll earn my thousand dollars a different way, thank you very much.  Spending the night half-submerged in Brazilian river water and cow blood, with only a goat for company, is not my idea of fun, even if the Caboclo doesn't show up.

The oppression of the majority

I wonder what it is about the mere existence of atheists that is so terrifying to some Christians.

Now, right up front, I want to emphasize that I'm not talking about all Christians, here.  I have friends who are devout Christians, and friends who are members of various other faiths, and mostly we all get along pretty well.  But it seems to me that there is a growing number of Christians, mostly of the evangelical stripe, who are threatened by people like me -- atheists/rationalists/secular humanists who won't just shut up and let the dominant majority religion run things, as it has for the last thousand years.

This all comes up because of two news stories from last week.  In one, Anthony Foxx, mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, declared May 2 not only to be a "National Day of Prayer," but a "National Day of Reason," stating that "it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to promote the development and application of reason."   Seems an innocent enough statement, right?

Nope.  The backlash was immediate and vitriolic.  Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women of America, blasted Foxx's move as anti-religious in general and anti-Christian in particular, ending a screed on Fox News with the quote, "You know the Age of Enlightenment and Reason gave way to moral relativism.  And moral relativism is what led us all the way down the dark path to the Holocaust."

Then, there was the story that appeared in Breitbart News that claimed that Christians in the military were in danger of being court martialled if they "shared their faith."  The whole thing apparently started with a demand by Mikey Weinstein, of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, that commanding officers enforce the long-standing no-proselytizing rule, explained as follows by Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen:

Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one's beliefs (proselytization).  If a service member harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence.  Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case-by-case basis.

Breitbart, and later Fox News, interpreted this as a "Christian cleansing of the military" by the Obama administration that would lead to the abolition of chaplains, and ultimately to court martial of any Christian in the military.  (Weinstein himself was called an "anti-Christian extremist.")

The story was accompanied by the following photograph, in case the plight of the poor, oppressed Christians didn't yank at your heartstrings enough:

Okay, can we just clarify something, here?  You Christians are still in the majority.  Virtually every position of power in the United States government is held by a self-professed Christian.  You have used your majority status to institute legislation that compels public school students to treat your holy book as if it were science.  You have mandated prayers before governmental meetings, and are determined to try to work prayer back into classrooms.  "In God We Trust" is still on our currency, and "one nation, under God" still in the Pledge of Allegiance.  People are still sworn in with their hand on the bible.

How, again, are you oppressed?

The problem, of course, is that you're unused to being challenged, and you're mistaking having someone push back against your hegemony with being persecuted.  You have been, for centuries, in sole control of everything in the United States and western Europe, with government and religion so deeply entangled that it was often hard to see where one started and the other ended.  But now, what has some Christians spooked is that people like me are becoming more numerous.  A recent poll put the number of atheists and agnostics in the United States at 20% -- a new high -- and put Protestants in the minority for the first time ever, at 48%, although Christians as a whole are still an overwhelming majority, at 76%.  The increase of non-belief, to the point that we're too numerous to subdue into silence, is terrifying to a group that has long held unquestioned dominance in every sphere of American life.  There are more self-professed atheists now than ever before in history, and we're refusing to do what we've always done -- which was to hide.

The ironic thing is how unfounded those fears are.  While atheists, agnostics, rationalists, humanists, secularists, and free-thinkers -- and those who hold to all other gradations of disbelief -- are often vocal in their disavowal of Christian ideas, very few of them have any grudge against Christian people.  The vast majority of the aforementioned nonbelievers think that Christians, and members of other faiths, are free to believe whatever they want, as long as they accord the same right to us.  And that's the critical point, here; we just want the same freedom that you have had for the last thousand years -- to be open about our convictions, without fear of repercussion, and without having to put up with religious folks demanding that we do things their way, or else.

So, to that subset of Christians who desperately want to appear oppressed because you're finally not getting your own way, I'd like to end by saying: no need to be afraid.  We atheists have no intent to do to you what you'd like to do to us.

Happy Day to Celebrate the Celebration-Of-The-Day Day!

Well, it's Friday, May 3, and allow me to be the very first to wish you a happy Paranormal Day.

Yes, it's Paranormal Day, which is that day set aside for "for all those who believe in paranormal activity to share experiences all around the world."  So, let me tell you about all of the paranormal experiences I've ever had.

*sound of crickets in background*

Okay, so maybe I've never had a paranormal experience.  I'd love to, though, and hereby put in a request that if any of you know of a house that you consider haunted, I would dearly love to spend the night there, although preferably not alone, because despite being a skeptic I am (1) fairly suggestible, and (2) a wuss.  But if you happen to live in a haunted house, and wouldn't mind a guest for a night, I'll bring the pizza and beer.

But our penchant for designating certain days as "National Whatever-It-Is Day" is a little odd, don't you think?  It's not like we don't have precedent, of course; Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, Pearl Harbor Day, the Fourth of July (and other national independence days), and so on, are all yearly revisitings of milestone events in our culture's history and dominant religion.  Even Valentine's Day is an annual day to commemorate romance and (frankly) sex.

But why must we label every day with something?  For example, I found out that today is also World Press Freedom Day, which seems like a good thing to celebrate except for the fact that the only people who will celebrate it are the people who knew about it because they already live in a country with a free press, which is a little ironic.  It's also International No Pants Day, which I'm not going to celebrate because I'd like to keep my job and also not get arrested, although given that it coincides with our school's monthly Dress Down Day I am going to wear shorts to work today, which I suppose sort of counts.

It also bears mention that May is National Masturbation Month, which does seem to work well with International No Pants Day.  However, in the interest of keeping this blog PG-13 rated, I'll leave you to celebrate that one in your own way.

Anyhow, back to Paranormal Day.  According to Psychics' Universe, Paranormal Day is a day for everyone, even "diehard skeptics," who are encouraged to "hang out and watch scary movies."  Which sounds kind of fun, actually.  For the true believers, however, there are some suggestions for how to observe this important yearly milestone:

What would Paranormal Day be without a celebration? Unlike typical holidays, there will be no parades or commemorative events. In all honesty, most folks won’t even know about this special day—but you will. Do something special for yourself and your friends. Get together and watch some scary movies or some old episodes of Ghost Hunters. Visit some local historical places and do a little ghost hunting of your own. Hold a séance or get a psychic reading. Whatever you do, enjoy the day and make the paranormal part of your normal routine!

So I think you should definitely pick something from this list, and post a comment letting us know what it was and how it went for you.  As for me, I think I might watch an episode of The X-Files when I get home from work this evening, given that the fact that it was clearly the most brilliant television series ever.   Once it gets dark, I might go for a walk in a local graveyard, just for the ambiance.  I wonder if ghosts are more likely to show up in graveyards on Paranormal Day?

Which does bring up an interesting question; why do ghosts supposedly hang around in graveyards?  I mean, I get the whole creepy atmosphere thing, and there's supposedly a tendency for ghosts to stick around wherever their bodies are.  But on the whole it seems like kind of a boring place to hang out, and also a fairly inefficient way to scare people, if that's what you're setting out to do.  If I were a ghost, I'd appear in mid day, preferably in the middle of a faculty meeting.

Now that's the way to get noticed.

In any case, I hope you have a wonderfully scary Paranormal Day, not to mention an inspiring World Press Freedom Day.  As far as No Pants Day and National Masturbation Month... well, what you do in the privacy of your own home is entirely up to you.

And if none of those appeals to you, remember that tomorrow is "Star Wars Day."  Yup...

May the Fourth... be with you.