There's this thing called "reality." You might want to check it out.

As a blogger who focuses continually on the crazy ideas people have, you'd think that after a while, I'd either (1) become cynical, (2) give up, or (3) devolve into what Robert Chazz Chute, the interviewer who chatted with me on the Cool People Podcasts, called "being a dick to dumb people."

I'd like to think that I avoid that trilemma most of the time.  But every once in a while, I run into something that makes me want to jump up and down and scream, "How in the hell can you believe this?  Are you a moron?  Or what?"  But I refrain from doing this, because usually I write in the early morning, and I don't want to wake up my wife.  Also, I own a nervous, neurotic border collie, who reacts to any stressful situations by peeing on the floor, so I'd like to avoid that if at all possible.

Just today, though, I ran into not one, but two stories that had that effect on me.

Now, note in each case, it's not the originator of the story that I want to yell at.  There are many loony people in the world, and it's well within their rights to publish their loony ideas online.  However, it is (in my opinion) beholden upon the rest of us to say, in as gentle a fashion as possible, "There, there, now.  Don't get yourself all worked up.  Just have a nice cup of cocoa and take a nap, and you'll feel better."

That is, of course, not what happened.  In each of these cases, the "comments" section filled up immediately with people who not only didn't argue with the person in question, they agreed.  They considered the wingnut's ideas logical.  They praised the courage of the originators for taking such a controversial stance.

Not one comment -- not one -- said, "Hey.  Reality.  It's over here.  You might want to give it a look."

Let's start with Starre Vartan, a writer for the Mother Nature Network, who wrote an opinion piece decrying public schools' abandonment of teaching children cursive.  Now, I myself am very much in favor of getting rid of cursive, largely because I never really managed well with cursive myself.  My cursive writing looks a little like the Elvish script from The Lord of the Rings, as written by an Elf with a severe disorder of the central nervous system.  I can't read my own cursive writing.  I don't know how anyone else would manage.

But Ms. Vartan is all up in arms over losing cursive.  Why, you might ask?  Is it because it's a valuable skill having to do with improving hand/eye coordination?  Is it because it's a fine old tradition that deserves to be continued?  Is it because, done properly, it is beautiful and artistic?

Nope.  None of the above.  Ms. Vartan believes that cursive is being abandoned...

... because there is some sort of a conspiracy to render children incapable of reading the Constitution.

She states, "It's near-impossible to read cursive if you can't write it," which certainly isn't true in my case, and honestly, is almost certainly untrue in general.  Generating script (productive language) and deciphering script (receptive language) aren't even done in the same parts of the brain, for cryin' in the sink; there's no reason to believe that even a person who has never written cursive in his life wouldn't be perfectly capable of being taught to read it.  As far as the governmental connection, she quotes Michael Sull: "There are so many children today who can't even read cursive writing, let alone write it.  They'll never be able to read anything that was written in the 19th century.  They won't be able to read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or anything written during the Civil War.  They're missing an entire portion of our country's history."

Because, of course, those documents don't exist in any other forms besides the cursive original.  Like, online, or in high school history texts, or anything.

Now, as I said, Ms. Vartan is perfectly within her rights to post her opinion, just as I do here in my blog.  But what I found appalling was that no one in the comments section even points out what were, to me, completely obvious broken links in the logical chain.  The comments virtually all began with phrases like, "What a good point!"  (There were two, in fact, that stated that the commenters had gone to school in Italy and Romania, respectively, and that they had learned cursive in grade school, and how much better the schools were there because of that.)

The second example came from none other than Alex Jones, who is so far gone on the wingnut spectrum that I am frankly stunned when he can say anything more coherent than "woogie woogie woogie pfththtptptptptptppt."  Jones has had a lot to say about Syria lately, most of which has contained the words "false flag" and has made no sense whatsoever, not that anyone should really find that surprising.  But he really outdid himself yesterday.  Here's what he said:

But it’s the globalists here running my life, that’s why they’re my front-and-center problem.  Because they are the biggest, most organized, eugenics-based, scientific dictatorship, trans-humanists at the top that plan the extinction of almost everybody and a new species to rise up or humans merged with machines.

That’s their religion, and no one’s discussing that.  Everyone is going to be deindustrialized, everyone is going to be put back into the Stone Age and controlled.  And Obama and the globalists and the robber barons, they’re going to fly around in their jetcopters and their Air Forces Ones and their red carpets, like gods above us.  And they’re going to get the life-extension technologies.

So the contention is that President Obama is in cahoots with various corporate leaders to kill most of us and return the rest of us to "the Stone Age," while they become immortal cyborgs who ride around on red carpets.

You know, it's an amazing day when someone can make the writings of L. Ron Hubbard appear sane.

And once again, how did people respond, on Jones' site InfoWars?  Here is a sampling (spelling and grammar are as written):

I've said it before and I'll say it again; How can we blame our government for supporting terrorists when WE are still supporting terrorists IN OUR GOVERNMENT??

I know people are afraid to believe, REFUSE to believe we've already been overthrown, but its true. There is no risk of it happening, it already has. We are wading through the changes one decade at a time. Changes happen slowly for a reason. Hitler did what he did overnight, and almost didnt fail.. Youre going to tell me people with the same ideas dont exist today? That your going to wake up and be in a completely different country one morning? They are going as slow as they have to to make it work, and I assure you all of their players are in place. There are thousands of people who do nothing with their lives but figure out how to implement a unified luciferian control over the globe. And MILLIONS who are indirectly doing work for said goal and dont even realize it.

These fckrs are planning more evil, something big too. Ya'll think they are just going to roll over and admit their defeat and wrongdoings? When most wake up, their pants will be around their ankles wondering WTF happened.

Alex Jones the Illuminati owned and run shill designed to discredit the Patriot Movement and keep it in the dark as to the real and obvious cause of their oppression.

Okay.  Give me a moment, here, to get my blood pressure back down.

There.  Somewhat better now.  In my calmer moments, I am willing to consider that the people who respond to stories like these do not represent a good sampling of the American public.  For one thing, most clear-thinking people probably wouldn't bother to take the time to register on a site so they can comment on a story that is obviously ridiculous; said clear-thinkers probably have better things to do, such as actually having jobs and families and lives.  Also, there's the possibility -- certain, I think, in Jones' case -- that dissenters, especially those like myself who would be likely to refer to Jones as a "raving whackjob," would be blocked from posting on the site in short order.

So I live in hope that what we're seeing in these comments is not a representative sampling of the opinions, and intelligence level, of the American citizenry.  And that hope will keep me posting here.  Cynicism is, after all, not a happy spot.  As my dad used to say: "I'd rather be an optimist who is wrong than a pessimist who is right."

Attack of the teenage exorcists

In previous posts I've described a lot of examples of Poe's Law -- a rule that states that it is impossible to tell the difference between a sufficiently well done satire and the real thing.  Today, I want to look at a different phenomenon -- the difficulty of determining when someone is making a claim because (s)he actually believes it to be true, or simply because it has the potential to generate a lot of money and notoriety.

It's the problem with psychics, isn't it?  Given the human capacity to lie convincingly, you can see that it would be difficult to determine if people like Psychic Sally Morgan sincerely believe that they can "see what's hidden," or if they are simply hoaxers and charlatans, in it to make money from the gullible.  (Note that even if the first is the case -- Morgan et al. actually do believe that they are psychic -- it has no relevance to the additional question of whether they are right.  There are lots of people who sincerely believe lots of things, and who are simply wrong or delusional.)

Which brings us to the trio of teenage exorcists who are currently embarked upon a quest to eliminate demons from England.

An upcoming documentary, filmed by Dan Murdoch and airing tomorrow on BBC3, chronicles the efforts of sisters Tess and Savannah Scherkenback and their friend Brynne Larson to exorcise the evil spirits that are currently troubling Great Britain.  These bad guys, the three say, were always kind of oozing around the place, but really gained a foothold recently...

... because of Harry Potter.

"It has been centuries in the making, but I believe it came to a pinnacle with the Harry Potter books," Savannah told reporters for The Daily Mail.  Her sister Tess agreed, adding, "The spells you are reading about are not made up.  They are real and come from witchcraft."

Funny, then, how when I shouted "Petrificus totalus!" at a student in my class who wouldn't stop talking, nothing happened.  Maybe the demon who is helping me was taking a nap, or something.

Be that as it may, these girls have gone all over the world with their dog-and-pony show, Casting Out Unclean Spirits and making Satan Get Thee Behind, um, Them, and raking in lots of money at each appearance.  It's clear that a lot of the audience members believe they're for real; there's the usual screaming and rolling-back-of-eyes and so on that accompanies exorcisms, followed by hallelujahs and praising of Jesus when the all-powerful Evil One is once again, surprisingly enough, vanquished.  But the question remains:  do the Weird Sisters themselves think that they're banishing demons -- or are they just charlatans who are in it for the money and publicity?

One thing that would argue for the former is that Brynne Larson is the daughter of Reverend Bob Larson, who is an evangelical wingnut of some proportion.  He's been around for a while; I remember listening to his radio program, Talk Back, in the 1980s when I lived in Seattle.  His major theme -- harped on in just about every single show -- was how the music industry was infested by demons, and how listening to rock-and-roll was going to endanger your soul.  He's written several books on the topic, including Rock & Roll: The Devil's Diversion, Hippies, Hindus, and Rock & Roll, Rock & the Church, and Rock, Practical Help for Those Who Listen to the Words and Don't like What They Hear, as well as the more general titles Larson's New Book of Cults and In The Name of Satan: How the Forces of Evil Work and What You Can Do to Defeat Them.  So it's pretty clear that Larson himself believes what he's saying, even though most of the rest of us think he should see a doctor about getting some antipsychotic meds.

Actually, my most vivid memory of Larson's radio show is that he was notoriously slow on the five-second delay button when people would call up to harass him, which happened with clock-like regularity.  On one extremely memorable occasion, a woman called up, asked a couple of misleading questions about how to invite Jesus as her personal savior to get Larson off his guard, and then said, "I'm just curious to ask, Reverend, can god get it up?"

Larson, clearly not understanding, said, "I beg your pardon?"

She said, "Can god get it up?  You know?  Because after all, man was created in god's image, and my boyfriend has a hard-on pretty much constantly.  And god made the Virgin Mary pregnant, and all, so I was just wondering..."

*click*

Then followed a fifteen-minute rant about how the forces of Satan were constantly attacking him, and how evil and twisted and depraved they were, and how that woman must have been possessed by a devil to call him and say such a thing.  No mention was made about how his (human) tech crew should be doing a better job of screening his calls, which is the reaction I would have had.

But I digress.

My guess, about the teenage exorcists, is that they probably are at least nominal Christians, but that they know full well that what they're doing isn't real.  "Reality" is the last thing that "Reality TV" turns out to be, and I suspect that that this is no exception.  I also suspect that the British, who are in general considerably less religious than Americans, will simply roll their eyes at the documentary and then proceed to forget all about it.  And the trio will have to take their Malleus Maleficarum roadshow elsewhere.

I'm sure, however, that this isn't the last "documentary" of this sort that we'll see.  Because, after all, the exorcists aren't the only ones who are motivated by profit.  If Teenage Exorcists is successful in garnering anything approaching high ratings, it will probably be only the first of many such shows.

All of which makes me glad that we don't watch television.

Microchipping Napoleon

When one of my loyal readers sent me an email asking if I'd heard about the alien microchip implanted in Napoleon's skull, I knew this was gonna be good.

I mean, you don't just combine the mortal remains of major historical figures with alien supertechnology, and not get something fantastic.

So I did a search for it, and man... well, let's just put it this way: I don't know how the hell I missed this one.  There were hits all over the place, a bunch of them just recently on conspiracy-type sites.  Here's a typical one, from earlier this year, courtesy of Bubblews, wherein we get the gist of the story:

While working on a grant from the French government to determine if a pituitary gland problem was the cause of Napoleon Bonaparte's small stature, one Dr. Andre DuBois claims to have discovered a half-inch long microchip implanted in the deceased ruler's skull...  DuBois suggests that, due to the bone growth around the chip, he believes it was implanted when he was very young.  Furthermore Dr. DuBois is quoted as saying, "Napoleon vanished from sight for a period of several days in July 1794, when he was 25.  He later claimed he’d been held prisoner during the Themidorian coup – but no record of that arrest exists.  I believe that is when the abduction took place."

So, we have a pretty amazing claim here, and a possible explanation for why Napoleon liked to stick his hand inside his shirt.  He was clearly adjusting the controls on bionic implants in his belly button.

Anyhow, I started trying to backtrack, and figure out where the story originated.  I found an earlier version (September of 2011) that had more information:

Scientists examining the remains of Napoleon Bonaparte admit they are "deeply puzzled" by the discovery of a half-inch long microchip embedded in his skull.  They say the mysterious object could be an alien implant — suggesting that the French emperor was once abducted by a UFO!

"The possible ramifications of this discovery are almost too enormous to comprehend," declared Dr. Andre Dubois, who made the astonishing revelation in a French medical journal.  "Until now, every indication has been that victims of alien abduction are ordinary people who play no role in world events.  Now we have compelling evidence that extraterrestrials acted in the past to influence human history – and may continue to do so!"

Dr. Dubois made the amazing find while studying Napoleon’s exhumed skeleton on a $140,000 grant from the French government.

"I was hoping to learn whether he suffered from a pituitary disorder that contributed to his small stature," he explained.  But instead the researcher found something far more extraordinary: "As I examined the interior of the skull, my hand brushed across a tiny protrusion. “I then looked at the area under a magnifying glass – and was stunned to find that the object was some kind of super-advanced microchip."

Righty-o, then.  A doctor is given $140,000 by the French government to determine whether Napoleon, who was five-foot-seven, was a pituitary dwarf, and instead the doctor finds that the Emperor had an alien implant.

That's... believable.

So, I tried to track it further back.  Both "Andre" and "Dubois" are common French names, so it was nearly impossible to narrow it down that way.  But I found a version of the story from 2010, and followed the lead from there, and ultimately it led back...

... to The Weekly World News.

 You'd think by this time I would just assume that this was the case.  After all, the same thing happened with the story of the alien burial site in Kigali, Rwanda, the story about how the Earth was about to be invaded by aliens from the planet Gootan, and the story about how there are glass pyramids under the Atlantic Ocean.  Apparently, there is an "all roads lead to Rome" rule about this phenomenon that goes something like, "all bullshit leads to The Weekly World News."

(By the way, for readers who check links -- the link I posted to The Weekly World News story on Napoleon is dated March of 2012, but that must have been an update or repost, because some of the comments on that link go back to 2009.  This really does appear to be the earliest iteration of the story available online.)

So, anyhow, there you have it: Napoleon is highly unlikely to have been an alien abductee.  A pity, really.  That sort of thing would make history class so much more interesting.  But I guess we'll just have to settle for the Peninsular War and the Battle of Leipzig, and try to make do with that.

Go away, atheists. We're tired of you.

Many of you have undoubtedly heard about the lawsuit currently making its way through the courts in Massachusetts, in which the state's Equal Rights Amendment is being used to argue that the words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

I realize that this is a hot-button topic on both sides of the issue.  Christians argue that our nation was founded by Christian men (a claim that has its own problems -- but which, as a non-historian, I am unqualified to weigh).  Atheists and agnostics object to a statement being read in public schools and at the beginning of government meetings of all sorts that asserts the existence of a deity, and which attendees are expected to recite.

Now, far be it from Fox News to refrain from throwing gasoline on the fire.

Dana Perino, Fox News commentator and former press secretary to President George W. Bush, was asked about the lawsuit last week, and had some fairly strong words to say about it.

"I’m tired of [atheists]," Perino said, in a discussion of the lawsuit with co-host Bob Beckel.  "I remember working at the Justice Department years ago when I first started right after 9/11 and a lawsuit like this came through, and before the day had finished, the United States Senate and the House of Representatives had both passed resolutions saying that they were for keeping 'under God' in the pledge.  If these people really don’t like it, they don’t have to live here."

Excuse me?

But, of course, instead of saying, "What the hell are you talking about?", Beckel simpered back at her, "Yeah, that's a good point."

"If you don't believe, then why do you care?" Perino added.  "It's just, like, some guy's name."

Is it really?  So, Ms. Perino, would you have no problem with saying, "One nation, under Ralph?"  After all, it's just some guy's name, and you don't believe that Ralph is a deity, so why do you care?

You know, what gets me about all of this is that no one seems to be able to come up with a cogent reason as to why the "under God" thing should be retained in the Pledge.  Nor, for that matter, why "In God We Trust" should be on our currency.  Christians are free to pray in their churches; they're free to pray in their homes; Christian children are, contrary to popular opinion, free to pray in public schools as long as (1) it is not a mandated, school-sponsored activity, (2) they don't disrupt class by doing so, and (3) they don't coerce other children into praying along with them.  (I've known more than one teenager, in our relatively liberal school, who has quietly said grace before eating lunch -- and never noticed anyone giving them any trouble over it.)

Why must we include statements that imply that in order to be an American, you have to be Christian?

Or, for that matter, religious at all?

The tacit assumption here -- that I, as an atheist, can't be a "real American," that I am somehow unpatriotic and unfaithful to the values on which this nation was founded -- is profoundly insulting to me.  My political views, and my loyalty to this country, are entirely unrelated to my belief or disbelief in a deity.  (Cf. "Separation of Church and State.")

So, Ms. Perino, what do you suggest for me, an American citizen and an atheist, as an option?  When I stand for the Pledge during my first period class, when I recite it when I attend school board meetings, that I just say "under God" even though I don't believe it?  In other words, that I should lie outright, in public?  Or that I should just skip that part -- inviting questioning looks and (occasionally) disapproving frowns?

Can you honestly tell me why any mention of a deity should be on our currency and in our public statements of allegiance?

And I'm very sorry, Ms. Perino, that you're "tired" of people like me, but you know what?  I think you're gonna have to take a couple of No-Doz, put your big girl pants on, and deal with it.  Because atheists, rationalists, agnostics, and the like -- the sort of people who put "none" under "religious affiliation" on official forms -- now make up 20% of the American population, according to a Pew Research study done late last year.  And we are no less likely than Christians are to be loyal, law-abiding citizens.

So unless you seriously want 1 in 5 Americans to leave the country, you might want to reconsider your rhetoric.

Not that what you think makes any difference.  Because I don't believe that atheists are planning on going anywhere -- and I suspect that, given current trends, we're only going to become more numerous.

Thinking with both sides of the brain

One of the reasons I love science is that it challenges our preconceived notions about the way the world works.

We are data-gatherers and pattern-noticers, we humans.  Even as babies we are watching and learning, and trying to make generalizations about the world based on what we've experienced.  And while many of those generalizations turn out to be correct -- we wouldn't have lasted long as a species if they weren't -- we sometimes draw incorrect conclusions.

And when we do, we tend to hang onto them like grim death.  Once people have settled on a model, for whatever reason -- be it that "it seems like common sense" or that it has gained currency as some kind of "urban legend" -- it becomes extremely hard to undo, even when the science is unequivocal that our beliefs are wrong.

I ran across a particularly good example of that this week.  I teach an introductory neurology class, and when we start talking about brain physiology and its role in personality, inevitably someone brings up the phenomenon of brain lateralization -- the fact that, as we develop, one side of the brain exerts more influence over us physically than the other does.  This is why most of us have a dominant hand, foot, eye, and so forth.

Most common biological traits can be explained based upon some kind of evolutionary advantage they provide, but the jury's still out on this one.  Halpern et al. concluded, in 2005 in The Journal of Neuroscience, in their paper "Lateralization of the Vertebrate Brain: Taking the Side of Model Systems," that the evolutionary advantage of allowing one side of the brain to dominate the motor activity of the body is that it allows the other, non-dominant side to do other things -- something they call "parallel processing."  But even they admitted that this was speculation.

One claim that gained a lot of currency, beginning in the 1960s, was that people who were right brain dominant were artistic, creative, and saw things holistically, and that people who were left brain dominant were logical, verbal, mathematical, and sequential.

Now, there may be some truth to the claim that the sensory-processing centers on the two sides of the brain do see the word differently -- studies done on people who have had strokes in the cerebrum, and those with "split brains" (who have had the corpus callosum cut, preventing cross-talk between the two cerebral hemispheres), do seem to support that there is a dramatic difference in how the two sides of the brain interpret what you see.   (For an amazing personal account that supports this view, check out Jill Bolte Taylor's talk "A Stroke of Insight.")

The idea that people with intact brains are either artistic right-brainers or logical left-brainers has led to a whole slew of "therapies" meant to allow people to "balance their brains."  It has been especially targeted at the left-brainers, who are sometimes seen as cold and calculating.

Many of these treatments require such things as forcing people to write or perform actions with their non-dominant hands, or patching their dominant eye -- the claim being that this will force the poor, subjugated non-dominant side of the brain to feel free to express itself, resulting in an enlightened, fully-realized personality.

All of this, apparently, is pseudoscience.

I've suspected this for a while, frankly.  In my neurology class, we do a physical brain dominance test, and someone always asks about brain lateralization's role in personality.  When this happens, I have had to do something I am always reluctant to do, which is to say, "Well, I haven't seen any research, but this seems to me to be bogus."

I don't have to say that any more. 

Two weeks ago, the peer-reviewed journal PLOS-One published a paper by Jared A. Nielsen, Brandon A. Zielinski, Michael A. Ferguson, Janet E. Lainhart, and Jeffrey S. Anderson entitled, "An Evaluation of the Left-Brain vs. Right-Brain Hypothesis with Resting State Functional Connectivity Magnetic Resonance Imaging."  In this paper they describe a series of experiments that looked at the actual structure of the brain, and its connectivity -- and they found that there's no such thing as a "right-brain" personality and "left-brain" personality based upon anything real that is present in the brain wiring.  Here's what they said in their discussion section:

In popular reports, “left-brained” and “right-brained” have become terms associated with both personality traits and cognitive strategies, with a “left-brained” individual or cognitive style typically associated with a logical, methodical approach and “right-brained” with a more creative, fluid, and intuitive approach. Based on the brain regions we identified as hubs in the broader left-dominant and right-dominant connectivity networks, a more consistent schema might include left-dominant connections associated with language and perception of internal stimuli, and right-dominant connections associated with attention to external stimuli.

Yet our analyses suggest that an individual brain is not “left-brained” or “right-brained” as a global property, but that asymmetric lateralization is a property of individual nodes or local subnetworks, and that different aspects of the left-dominant network and right-dominant network may show relatively greater or lesser lateralization within an individual.

So the truth turns out to be more complicated, but more interesting, than the commonly-accepted model.  We tend to do that a lot, don't we?  After all, what is much of pseudoscience but an attempt to impress order upon nature, to make it fit in neat little packages, to make it work the way we'd like it to?  Astrology, for example, would have you believe that there are twelve personality types, and that anything about your behavior that needs explanation can be filed under the heading of, "Oh, but of course I'm like that.  I'm a Scorpio."

But the world is complex and messy, and doesn't care about our desire for order.  However, it is also beautiful and mysterious and fascinating, and ultimately, understandable.  And science remains our best lens for doing so, for blowing away the dust and cobwebs of our preconceived notions, and helping us to comprehend the world as it is.

And it works regardless of which side of the brain you're thinking with.

Sparkly happy people

In yesterday's post, I described how several loyal readers are contributing to my ongoing progress toward insanity by sending me links to bizarre websites, accompanied by innocent-sounding messages like "I thought you'd find this interesting."

Never dangle bait like that in front of people who are as smart as these folks are.

Only an hour later, I got an email from one of them with the subject line, "I thought you'd find this interesting."  The body of the email contained only the single word, "Enjoy!" -- and a link to the website for the Hibiscus Moon Crystal Academy.

Well, like Rudyard Kipling's character Elephant's Child, one of my besetting sins is insatiable curiosity.  Knowing as I was doing so that I would probably regret it, I clicked the link.

A while back, I did a piece about Poe's Law, the general rule of thumb that a sufficiently well-done parody is indistinguishable from the thing it is parodying.  And looking at the website for Hibiscus Moon Crystal Academy, my first thought was, "Poe's Law.  This can't be real."

I mean, consider the following paragraph, that appears on the home page:

This is the place where the Crystal Hotties come to learn about the art & science of crystal healing.  We enjoy sharing all the wonders of working with healing crystals and exploring the physics & metaphysics behind how they work all while having lots of FUN.  The academy is taught by Hibiscus Moon, best-selling author of the book Crystal Grids: How and Why They Work.  Not sure where to begin?  No worries, Jelly Bean!  Subscribe to my weekly newsletter to ease you in and you’ll also receive a FREE Creating Sacred Space with Crystals eKit to get you started on your sparkly journey with crystal energy healing!

"Crystal Hotties?"  "Jelly Bean?"  "Crystal Grids?"  "Sparkly journey?"

I... what?

But I spent the better part of an hour, at the cost not only of time but of countless innocent neurons in my prefrontal cortex who died agonizing deaths, looking at this website, and I have come away convinced.

These people are serious.

For example, consider the following passage:

I want to make sure that we attract the right kind of student here at the HMCA. I love you all but we’re not all cut out to do the same things, you know?

• First & foremost, I totally get that not everyone is cut out to do this light healer or crystal healer type of work. Sometimes there are other things that need to get worked on first. No judgments there at all.
• That being said, I know that many get intimidated thinking “Who am I to be healing anyone?” Here at the HMCA, we realize & teach that we can all heal each other & that healing is a 2-way street…both the facilitator & the “heal-ee” exchange & receive. If we waited for all the healers to be PERFECT before they did any “healing” for anyone else….we’d all be waiting a LONG TIME!
• Next, if you’re looking for a course that simply spews out crystal properties for you to memorize then this is not the course for you. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that but there are other courses out there for you if that’s more of what you resonate with. Our method teaches you to really get to know your crystals & we take a more personal approach to that.

That just doesn't have the sound of a parody, does it?

There are all sorts of books, videos, and products for sale, including a "Sparkly Space Clearing e-Kit," whatever the hell that is.  There are testimonials.  Their Facebook page has been "liked" almost 57,000 times.  They have, apparently, been endorsed by Massage & Bodywork magazine.  But then, "Hibiscus Moon" blathers on like this:

What does it mean when your crystal cracks or breaks?

Sometimes it doesn’t mean anything at all. It could be just plain ole’ science & physics that did it like a heavy impact or thermal shock: extreme hot to cold or cold to hot.

But sometimes a stone or crystal just breaks…with no explanation.

So then we have to look at energy.

Think of it as the singer & wine glass shattering scenario. What causes that to happen?

The frequencies of the wine glass were perfectly pitched or perfectly oscillated with the sound frequency of the note that the singer was holding. This created a 3rd resonant field of greater energy & that cracks the wine glass.

The same scenario may be taking place when our crystal cracks. The vibrational frequency  of the crystal may be synchronizing with a frequency in its environment & BOOM! Crack.

Keep in mind…crystals do not die or stop working b/c they’ve cracked or broken. Please continue to work with them. They are still there for you.

What if this happens more than once with a particular crystal? Well, in that case, its work with  you may be done. Perhaps this is a sign to gift this piece on to whoever needs it more than you. Its work isn’t done, perhaps, it just needs to move on to someone else.

Now, the intense energy that caused the stone or crystal to crack, whether a physical impact or energetic impact was intense (especially if we’re talking about a quartz crystal)…& that my have temporarily altered the crystal’s normal vibrational frequency. So you’ll want to give that crystal a little break for a bit. A little spa vacation with a nice cleansing. But after about a month, it should be rarin’ to go again.

How do you do that? You can do a meditation with the cracked/broken crystal & thank it for the work it has been doing for/with you. Then since this a high amplitude energy that caused it to crack, you can do a good crystal re-tuning. Then, I recommend giving it a little rest or retreat for a month buried in Mother Earth. Ahhhh. Be sure to mark the spot well so you can find it again!

So I hope that puts some of you at ease when a crystal cracks or breaks!  If you have any stories to share, we'd all love to hear!

Sparkles and Glittery Blessings,

Hibiscus Moon

Yup!  It could be plain "ole" science and physics!  Or maybe your crystal might need a "little spa vacation with a nice cleansing" so that it's "rarin' to go again!"

I don't know about you, but I'm going with the science and physics.

One of the problems I had, while reading all this, is not just that it seems to be composed of complete nonsense, but that the writer of the website (who I assume is "Hibiscus Moon") exhibits a perkiness level usually only seen in employees of Disneyland.  She keeps calling the readers "crystal hotties" and "sparkly friends" and "party people" and "crystalline cohorts," which I think was intended to be encouraging and friendly even though the last one sounds like a villain from Star Trek: The Next Generation.  All of her signoffs are something like "Oceans of Sparkly Blessings!"  Overall, her writing sounds like she could use a good sedative, or possibly just spending some time watching C-Span.

Now, don't get me wrong.  These people sound like lovely human beings, and honestly, I would much rather see folks cheerfully playing with their crystals than hurting each other.  It could well be that many of the world's problems could be solved if people like Kim Jong-Un and Bashar al-Assad would just stop what they're doing every once in a while and contemplate healing their spiritual angst with a nice emerald (which, we find out on the site, is the Crystal of the Year.)

But as far as having anything to do with "ole" science and physics... this doesn't.  It's harmless enough to anything but your bank account, but any resemblance between "crystal healing" and an experimentally-supported medical modality is purely coincidence, or possibly the placebo effect.

And to the friend who sent me the link: you win this round.  You "crystal hottie," you.

The strange world of the Sovereign Citizens

One of the features of writing this blog that turns out to be a mixed blessing is that I frequently am sent suggestions by readers for topics for future posts.  I say it's a "mixed blessing" because while some people who read Skeptophilia are fellow skeptics and rationalists who are acting as a team of free-lance (and unpaid) investigative reporters on my behalf, there are some of them who are (to put not too fine a point on it) batshit crazy.  Thus, for example, the person who joined in with me in chuckling about how silly the people are who believe in the power of crystal-infused wands to mitigate chronic pain, but only because she'd found some crystals that really worked, because they were magical rocks that came from the sky.

I considered writing back and explaining to her the definition of the words "sky," "meteorite," and "planet," but decided that it probably was better to leave well enough alone.

There's a more insidious downside to writing this blog, though, and it usually comes about because of the good intentions of my most faithful readers.  There are about a half-dozen folks who send me topics with great regularity, and although I don't think any of them know the others, you would think (by looking at their submissions) that they are in cahoots and are engaging in some sort of Loony Topic One-Upmanship Contest.  Each time I get an email with a link from one of them, it should come with a message, "You think what the others sent you was insane -- wait till you see this!"  Mostly, though, they are just accompanied by some innocent-sounding text, like, "I thought you'd find this interesting."

So, of course, I have to click the link, meaning that I spend the next half-hour with an expression like this:

Which brings me to my friend Peter.

Peter is a skeptic and rationalist par excellence, and a frequent reader and contributor to Skeptophilia.  For which, I will say up front, I am very grateful.  But last week, he sent me an email in which he asked a seemingly innocent question, which was, "Have you ever heard of the 'Sovereign Citizens' movement?"

I said that I hadn't.  In response, he sent me a link to the following video clip.  (Note: by posting this, I am in no way suggesting that you should watch it.  In fact, when I watched it, the only thing that persuaded me not to slam my head face-first into the wall was that I didn't want to have to explain a broken nose and missing front teeth to my wife.  You should only watch this video if you have a strong tolerance for music from 50s informational video shorts and narrators who sound like June Cleaver on Prozac.  Don't say you haven't been warned.)

The gist, for those of you who took my advice and didn't watch the video, is that the government owns you because of your birth certificate, and that any time you register something, it belongs to the government because "regis" means "king."  (Nota bene:  do not fuck around with a linguist.  "Register" comes from the Latin verb regerere, meaning "to record" -- from re-, again, and gerere, to carry or bear.  It has nothing to do with the Latin word for "king," which is rex, and comes from a Proto-Indo European root "*reg-" meaning "right" or "rule.")

Be that as it may, the video goes on to inform you that at birth, your existence was recorded by the government and that has created a "straw man," which is dead.  Or maybe that you're dead and the straw man is alive.  It's a little hard to tell, frankly.  The gist of it seems to be that by paying taxes and signing your name and following laws, you're creating this "fake you" that the government owns, and that the "real you" needs to just stop doing all of that stuff.

So, I was watching this, and wondering if this was some kind of parody, and increasingly it dawned on me: these people are serious.  They really want you to "destroy your straw man" by tearing up your birth certificate, car registration, marriage license, and so on.  Which is how this all connects to the "Sovereign Citizen" movement.

The idea of the Sovereign Citizen movement is that we sheep-like ordinary folk are willingly handing over our rights, money, and freedom to governments, and that we should just stand up and take 'em all back.  Stop paying taxes, stop going along with things like registering children, cars, homes, and so on, stop going along with military draft registration.  In fact, just stop having anything whatsoever to do with the government.  This movement has apparently gained a lot of traction up in Canada, where an estimated 30,000 people consider themselves "sovereign citizens" who have severed all ties with the Canadian government -- including, in some cases, following the law.

In one sense, the Sovereign Citizen movement has a point; when you think about it, it is kind of silly that we've drawn some arbitrary lines all over the Earth and said, "If you are inside this set of invisible lines, you have national health care, gays can marry, you have free public education through college, and you're expected to pay 50% income tax rates; a mile away, across that invisible line, none of that is true."

Can you imagine trying to explain that to an intelligent alien species?

The problem, of course, is that however much you go around saying you're a sovereign citizen and you don't have to pay taxes and all, the government still has a considerable power to compel you, or at least make your life miserable if you don't cooperate.  And the reality is that however strange the idea might seem, governments do provide us with some reasonably nice benefits (e.g. police, fire departments, roads, and public schools).  So even if they curtail our rights some, and require us to do jury duty and file for marriage licenses and the rest, on the balance, I'll still take this over anarchy.

So the "sovereign citizens" end up coming across a little bit like the people who have founded "micronations" by semi-officially seceding their houses from the country in which they reside.  The general response by the powers-that-be is, "Okay, have fun playing in your pillow fort, but when the time comes to do your chores, you still have to do them.  Or else."

Anyhow, my thanks to Peter for telling me about all this, even if it started out with a link that had me wearing my "horrified expression" for six minutes straight.  And I don't want to discourage people from sending me topics -- I honestly love hearing from my faithful readers.  I will continue to look at all the links you send, I promise, whatever the cost to my poor aching facial muscles.  And you can continue to read what I write, free of charge.

You don't even have to register.