The Long Russian Winter of Vladimir Putin

by Nomad

Russian President Vladimir Putin may not be as popular as he once was. Of late his policies both internationally and domestically have raised more than a few eyebrows. 

While it may not be a return to the days of the Cold War,  many in the West might be thinking the present chill in relations seems much more like an awfully long Russian winter.

Putin's PR Problem

 A recent Gallup poll suggests that a majority of Americans now take a negative view of Russia, more so that any time in the last two decades.

Only 34 percent of poll respondents have a favorable view of Russia, while 60 percent have an unfavorable view. This is quite a swing since 2012 when only 44 percent had an unfavorable view in 2012.

As we shall see, analysts have a barrel-full of reasons to explain this decline. Russia's handling of Greenpeace and Pussy Riot activists, anti-gay laws and the whole Edward Snowden affair  may all have played a role in the Russian public relations problem. 

Since politics in the former Soviet nation is too often a one-man arrangement, it's no great surprise that this dislike seems to be focused on  Russia's leader.

The poll also found that the 61-year-old Russian president, Vladimir Putin has also become an unpopular figure among Americans with a steady rise in unpopularity since 2002, starting at 18 percent to the present figure of a whopping 63 percent this year. 

Interestingly, Americans aren't alone in their view of Putin. Europe too might be a little less than pleased.

In particular, European leaders are growing concerned. Russian policy in Ukraine has created a serious rift with Europe, the tone of which we haven't seen since the days of the Cold War. When Vladimir Chizhov, Russia’s ambassador to the EU, warned European leaders not to 'test Putin’s patience' it was hard to ignore that things had sunk pretty low.

Unfair Use: How Copyright Violation Claims are Used to Suppress Intelligent Debate

by Nomad

Online hosting sites like YouTube and others routinely chose to ignore the fair use provisions of of the copyright laws at the cost of online free speech.

When does one man's education and debunking through science become another man's propaganda?

Deconstructing the House of Numbers

The website TechDirt has an interesting article that caught my eye. Here's the story.

When a 2009 documentary called House of Numbers made the claim that HIV and the AIDS epidemic was part of a conspiracy theory, it - not unexpectedly- became the center of some fierce controversy. Supporters of the film said it provided "a number of challenging and disturbing thoughts" but the New York Times described the documentary as "a weaselly support pamphlet for AIDS denialists." The Portland Oregonian criticized its makers for "not being entirely honest with viewers," and the Wall Street Journal just wrote the whole film off with the words: "this season's fashion in conspiracy theories."

Conspiracy theories come in all varieties, from the absolutely nutty to the quite plausible. Some are based on opinion, some on facts and some on misrepresentations and lies. 

In fact this theory has been floating around for quite a long time but unfortunately, to some of the less discerning minds, it could sound plausible. So, even if the film's premise was 99 % irrefutable, the message of the film would still be more than a little irresponsible based only on that 1% of doubt. After all, believing in this particular conspiracy theory could have some serious consequences.

And the nature of the Internet makes things still worse. Once this kind of material gets online it can take on a life of its own. Such ideas can spread quickly on the Internet, and after being completely destroyed, it may re-surface over and over, "reinfecting" new victims.  

In this age of nearly unlimited speech, it is something most of us have reluctantly had to put up with. After all, the possible harm can only be mitigated by more free speech and science, right? 

It was for that reason, famous scientific debunker Myles Powers decided to put out a series of videos showing both why the claims in House of Numbers are rubbish and how the producers of the film had manipulated the evidence. Naturally in order to properly debunk the material in the film, he used excerpts of it. And why not? What other way can it be done?
However, producers (or those featured in the film) quickly filed claims of copyright violation against Powers and his videos. As soon as it received the copyright violation claims, YouTube immediately took down the debunking videos.

Jefferson's Words to the 99%: You Were Not Born With a Saddle on your Back

by Nomad

ALL eyes are opened or opening to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

Thomas Jefferson