The View from Number 80

Deya's Day of Reckoning - cannot be far off. 80 has been following the story of self-styled archbishop Gilbert Deya and the "miracle babies" scandal since August of last year. Deya boasted that he could miraculously cause sterile, barren and post-menopausal women to have babies through his intercession or as the BBC described his claim at the time, "he can exorcise demons from women who have passed the menopause or who are infertile" . The only snag was that the women, members of Deya's congregation in Britain, would have to travel to Kenya to give birth. It was then that things began to unravel for Deya and his confederates as the Kenyan authorities investigated and accusations of baby-smuggling were voiced. Deya, still in Britain, has maintained his innocence in a most extraordinary fashion, cursing his accusers, apparently believing that his increasingly unhinged outbursts were sufficient to quiet investigations - see here for 80 on the Miracle Babies story as it unfolded. Now the BBC have returned to the subject, having originally featured Deya in a radio show called A "Cure" for Infertility last year and still available online here. Tomorrow, Friday 22nd April at 12:04 pm "...we'll be hearing new evidence on the UK based Gilbert Deya Ministry and its links to child trafficking - currently the focus of police investigations both here and in Kenya." on the You and Yours show. This can be listened to over the web on BBC Radio 4 as it goes out and will be available afterwards on the You and Yours web page. (This is a classic example of how the faithful can be perfect targets for fraud - making use of their undoubted gullibility. Also see Faithful Forfeit and Costly Blind Faith for more examples.)

Plagiarize - let no one else's work evade your eyes*. 80 wishes to apologize for lifting material from another publication. When did this happen? Right now - the National Secular Society's Newsline email newsletter is a regular Friday shot in the arm and this week the letter writers have excelled themselves. So, what better than to quote some of their thoughts and incidentally plug the National Secular Society - the NSS have perfected the art of making a point without descending into pomposity - the element of humor is never far away. Anyway, on the with the bare-faced theft... Dave Purnell wrote in with some pertinent observations regarding the new creation museum in Kentucky, "Re. the creationist museum which showed a saddled dinosaur (Newsline last week). This is perfectly sensible. Using established scientific procedure, we start by examining the available evidence (ie. the earth is 10,000 years old), create a testable hypothesis (that man and dinosaurs therefore must have co-existed), then work out the consequences. One of which is that men, as masters of the animal kingdom, would have rode astride the dinosaurs for the purposes of travel, recreation, quarrying, etc. They would also have used smaller herbivores to mow the lawn, and parrot-like dinosaurs as telephones. This is exactly as described in the testimony of the Prophets Hanna and Barbera (peace be upon them), available every day on the Boomerang Channel, Sky 603." Here is Alan Rogers on the pope's funeral, "Later, I accidentally saw a few seconds of the ‘spectacle’ on BBC news. Before I hit the OFF switch I saw Bush, Rice, Blair (responsible for uncounted deaths in Iraq), Prince Charles (adulterer and breaker of wedding vows) and Robert Mugabe (vicious dictator extraordinaire)… all sitting in a line at the pope’s funeral. ‘You know a man by the company he keeps’ even in death it seems." If you find yourself smiling and nodding in agreement with these writers 80 recommends you check out membership of the NSS - for the price of say, a few lottery tickets, you can help make a difference and join a society "...on the side of all humanity, the side of intelligence, rationality and decency".

Soiled Award - like a dog digging up a favorite, mouldering, odiferous bone for one more chew, Ben Goldacre in his current Bad Science column returns to the subject of the You Are What You Eat bullshitter, Gillian McKeith. It seems that in a moment of madness the Soil Association has presented this self-promoting, scientifically-illiterate, minor TV celebrity and pretend nutritionist their 2005 Consumer Education award. Goldacre's take on all this is a breath of fresh air - and one you can inhale here. For an interesting look at McKeith's medical knowledge see this page "In my view Dr Gillian McKeith is a charlatan. For all I know she may genuinely believe what she says and has convinced herself she is giving the truth but there is no scientific basis in anything she says."  So says John Garrow, professor emeritus in human nutrition at London University, retired head of nutrition at St Bartholomew's Hospital and chairman of the internet medical service Healthwatch.

Holy Omerta - Mark Lawson writing in the Guardian on April 23rd revealed a gift for prophecy when he wrote that "The worry for Catholicism, though, is that, for the first time, a pope finds himself subject to the minute journalistic research now standard for political candidates. What if some embarrassing document or revelation about Ratzinger were to be found? " Right on cue the next day in the Guardian's sister paper the Observer was the headline "Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry". It seems that Pope Benedict XVI, then Joseph Ratzinger, in May 2001 sent a confidential letter to bishops asserting the church's right to make its own investigations of child abuse allegations and to keep those proceedings secret. It orders that the results of investigations be referred to Ratzinger's office which, to quote the Observer, "...has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'." The letter also baldly states "Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret" the disclosure of which could be punished by excommunication. This is less shepherd of the flock and more like capo of the mob - omerta indeed. Ratzinger's attitude is made clear in another Observer piece by the same correspondent, Jamie Doward, about well-corroborated allegations of abuse made against Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legion of Christ and confidant of Pope John Paul II, who described him as "..efficacious guide to youth". Ratzinger is also reported to have said of the accusations "One can't put on trial such a close friend of the Pope as Marcial Maciel". The arrogance displayed here is breathtaking. Sexual abuse of children is apparently not serious to merit investigation if you are a close friend of the Pope. There is no reason to expect that Ratzinger, a man in his late 70's, will undergo a Damascene transformation into someone who actually cares about the abuse of children rather than the Church's reputation just because he now has the top job - it likely to be business as usual - and disgusting business at that. It seems that this old man is quick to see the mote in another's eye but is blind to the bloody great beam in his own. At his inauguration mass Benedict/Ratzinger said that his task was not to pursue his own ideas, but to listen to and be "...guided by the will of God." And who decides what is the will of God? Why, Ratzinger. Dressing a hypocrite in a white stole does not make him any less a hypocrite. In the words of his own scripture, he is nothing but a whited sepulchre "which indeed appears beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness". (Matt. 23:27 if you are curious)

Interstellar Bible-Bashers - which is more scary - aliens armed with superweapons or aliens armed with religion? Quite frankly either sounds pretty dire in 80's view, but movie director Steven Speilberg thinks differently. Interstellar bible-bashers hold no fears for him apparently "I can't believe anybody would travel such vast distances bent on destruction. I believe anybody who would travel such vast distances are curious explorers, not conquerors. Carrying weapons a hundred-thousand light-years is quite a schlepp. I believe it's easier to travel 100,000 light-years with their versions of the Bible." Would we be considered ripe for conversion - perhaps the forced conversion suffered by native Americans at the hands of Catholic friars in the New World? Or would we be considered animals or vermin for not being made in their God's image? Considering organized religion's disgusting record on this planet 80 would be happier to see ET's tentacle wrapped around a raygun rather than a bible. Let's hope neither is the case. Perhaps Arthur C Clarke has it right, calling religion a "disease of infancy", and in his novel 3001: The Final Odyssey it has become taboo, a product of man's early ignorance that provoked hatred and bloodshed. Given that so many scientific and technical advances have occurred despite, not because of, organized religion perhaps ET will have outgrown all that nonsense. Perhaps creatures that don't manage this are doomed to extinction. Poor old homo not so sapiens. With rampant Islamic fundamentalism and the Bush administration's efforts to turn the US into a theocracy maybe when ET does land the planet will be vacant, just waiting for some new, and hopefully less destructive and irrational tenants.

Mustache Guy - the truth. Here is an interesting item that goes some way towards explaining George Bush's nomination to the post of UN ambassador of a man whose unsuitability for the job is glaringly obvious, John Bolton. It seems that Bolton was up to his neck in the election scandal in Florida in 2000. The article, from Daily Kos, charmingly, and accurately calls Bolton "Scary Abusive Intelligence-Manipulating Mustache Guy" and highlights his typically bombastic intervention in the vote recount with the words "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count." Bolton was called in as attack dog by James Baker, former Secretary of State, when it looked like the Florida count would be crucial to Bush's chances. Bolton's job was to put an end to all that dangerous democracy stuff. As one correspondent says on the Daily Kos page (scroll down to the comments) "Bolton knows where the FL 2000 bodies are buried. If you were Bush/Cheney would you abandon him?" It seems not, hence his current nomination to serve as ambassador to an organization he has repeatedly attacked and belittled. And there was 80 thinking Bush proposed him for the job because of his neat trick of balancing that caterpillar on his upper lip. (According to this article from the Miami Herald Bolton is just one of 50 people who "helped" in the Florida recount battle and who were subsequently rewarded with political appointments)

Quotes - from  comments on the Daily Kos page mentioned above, "The Book of Revelation is NOT a foreign policy manual." and this little gem, "When the rapture comes can I have your stuff?"

May 4th 2005

21st Century Delusion - in an article in the Guardian entitled "The 21st century atheist" Dylan Evans tells us that "Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naively pro-science." Evans is senior lecturer in intelligent autonomous systems at the University of the West of England and on his website he proclaims that his book, Introducing Evolutionary Psychology "...was required reading for the main actors in The Matrix". The Matrix, you will recall, was a movie, shot through with religious imagery, about a human race held captive and used as the energy supply for a super computer that kept its human batteries quiescent by fabricating a false reality. In the Guardian piece Evans not only looks to be falling into a delusional trap of his own making, he also takes an ineffectual swipe at what he calls the "...old and tired" atheism of Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller. Evans claims to distinguish his 21st century atheism from "old atheism" in three ways, "...it values religion; treats science as simply a means to an end; and finds the meaning of life in art." Leaving the first tenet for the moment let us look at treating science as a means to an end. This is hardly new and would be the position of old atheists as much as new. The idea that old-fashioned atheism can be "..naively pro-science" is a nonsense. Science, or more accurately the scientific method, is a human construct that attempts to understand the universe, how it is put together, how it began and how it may end. It is not perfect, as scientists themselves are fallible humans, but unlike any other human activity it has the virtue of being self-correcting. Science, and its application in technology, has to pass the Feynmann test, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." If something is shown by experiment not to match Nature then it is rejected, simple as that. All scientific knowledge is open to revision - which happens to be the very opposite of revealed religion. Atheists are questioning types, otherwise they would not be atheists, and their skepticism extends to science, as it does to any human endeavor that claims to offer answers as to how the world truly is. As for Evans's third tenet that his brand of atheism "...finds the meaning of life in art" this is purely an opinion, as any individual's reaction to a work of art is a subjective one.  Asking whether anyone can find the meaning of life in art seems to assume that life has a meaning in the first place. Physicist Steven Weinberg sees things differently, "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." - which again is a  subjective view. If such meaning, or the lack thereof, could be proved objectively there would be no room for religious faith, which is, after all, a blind belief that your particular religion gives meaning to existence.

Which brings us to Evans's first tenet of his new atheism, that it values religion. Here he becomes a victim of his own imagination by falling for his ideal picture of an acceptable version of religion, and yet all the while  ignoring how it actually plays out in the real world. He says, "When I say that I value religion, I don't mean that I see any truth in the stories about gods, devils, souls and saviours. But I do think there is one respect in which religion is more truthful than science - in its depiction of the longing for transcendent meaning that lies in man's heart.....My kind of atheism sees religions as presenting potent metaphors and images to represent human aspirations for transcendence. It is only when these metaphors are understood as such, and not mistaken for literal statements, that the true value of religion is revealed." This is all very fine as a personal point of view, but is not shared by the the growing numbers of politically and socially active religious fundamentalists who believe the old myths and legends in their holy book are literally true - and that this book contains rules everyone else must obey on pain of punishment. The same people would view new or old atheists as incapable of any morality or ethics, which are solely the preserve of the believer and god-given. The sight of the USA under Bush lurching toward an anti-science Christian theocracy, or Islamic suicide bombers sowing death in crowded markets is enough to show Evans's view of religion paints a pretty but grossly innaccurate and naive picture.

The rational world view and the scientific method are under threat as never before and Evans's "21st century atheism" is pathetically inadequate as a tool to combat this. Try discussing religion's "...longing for transcendent meaning..." with a Pope who would like to see medieval Christendom foisted on the European Union, with women in the role of baby-making machines, or a creationist nitwit who believes the planet is a mere few thousand years old and who flatly rejects any scientific evidence to the contrary - and who wants such nonsense taught in schools. Evans reveals how out of touch with reality he is when he says "Atheists who attack religions for painting a false picture of the world are as unsophisticated and immature as religious believers, who mistake the picture for reality. The only mature attitude to religion is to see it for what it is - a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality, and which only a child would reject for being false." This sentence shows just how unaware Evans is of the danger posed by religious fundamentalists in positions of power. Try telling a religious fanatic who believes he has been specially chosen by God to blow himself up on a school bus, or to fly an airliner into a skyscraper, or to shoot a doctor who happens to provide abortions, that his religious convictions are "..a kind of art". Evans's so-called 21st century atheism is new in only one thing, its total uselessness in the face of the resurgent, assertive and violent religiosity that threatens everything humanity has learned since the Enlightenment - including the kind of advances that allow Evans to be a senior lecturer in intelligent autonomous systems rather than being persecuted or even killed for his lack of belief. 80 has tried to avoid the "ivory tower" cliche in this short piece but sadly that is from where Evans views his world, a world that does not actually exist. It is little  wonder his book was required reading for the cast of The Matrix. Perhaps it is time Evans took the Red pill.

Here are some other reactions to Evans's piece from Guardian letters, and this is what Butterflies and Wheels has to say about it.

Don't Know How to Vote? - for anyone feeling challenged by the dazzling choices available to UK voters, a look at this page may help you concentrate. Or not.....

Politburo Conclave - here is an interesting article by Andrew Brown comparing the choice of old hardliner Joseph Ratzinger to run the Catholic church with that of the Politburo in the fading days of the Soviet Union when they selected old hardliner Konstantin Chernenko as boss, fighting a rearguard action against change. Hindsight tells us he was the last of the old brigade before Mikhail Gorbachev the reformer. The fact that Gorbachev's reforms actually hastened the end of that corrupt and repressive empire leads Brown to hope that the next occupant of the Vatican will be a Pope Mikhail - with all that implies for the Roman Catholic church. 80 is not convinced, but Brown's take on things is well worth reading, as is much else on the openDemocracy site. For example try George W Bush: far from Mount Rushmore by Godfrey Hodgson, Terri Schiavo, Iraq, social security, stem-cell research, the supreme court – three months into President Bush’s second term, his right-wing coalition is cracking...read on.

Unreal Estate - here is what, at the moment, seems to be a purely American phenomenon - Christian real estate agents. Not real estate agents that just happen to be Christians but agents who trumpet their membership of the faith to promote their business. This piece in the San Francisco Chronicle introduces us to the Christian Real Estate Network and their coyly named website Hismove.com. The main selling pitch seems to be that as these folk believe in a supernatural, undead being, this somehow makes them more trustworthy to do business with. The pledge of performance on the web page had 80 reaching for the sickbag, "As committed believers, and as Real Estate Professionals, we Agree to provide a level of service to our clients which will glorify our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." How does buying and selling property at a profit glorify their God? It comes down to the usual Christian drivel that because they think a bogeyman is looking over their shoulder all the time ready to damn them for eternity if they screw up they are somehow more ethical. What happened to ordinary, non-supernaturally enforced integrity and fairness? If the only reason someone is square with you is because of their fear of divine retribution, is that not deeply sad? Why not treat others fairly and considerately because you, yourself, not some nebulous savior, feel that is the right thing to do. This whole business is one more example of Christians arrogantly assuming that their particular delusions somehow make them more moral than those who can make up their own minds as to how to treat others. Then, to cap it all, these smug bastards use their supposedly high morals as a marketing tool. Where the hell is that sickbag?

May 5th 2005

Cross Dilemma? - it cannot have escaped the notice of those eligible to vote in UK elections that today is polling day. If you are a humanist/atheist and are still undecided you are leaving things a bit late, but before rushing off to the polling booth take 5 minutes to read this article in New Humanist by Nick Cohen, Where will you put your cross? which looks at what the major parties are offering unbelievers. They are all keen (excepting the Greens) to court the religious vote, but what are they promising those unencumbered by a god or gods? If after reading Cohen you are still a waiverer perhaps you should cast your ballot in favor of the Monster Raving Loony Party which, among other candidates is fielding The Flying Brick, Shadow Minister for The Abolition of Gravity,  Dancing Ken, Shadow Minister of Happiness and Jedediah Caleb Bartimaeus Headbanger,  Shadow Minister of Silly Sausages.

Burka Sprint - sometimes, right in the middle of a serious news item a description or turn of phrase can trigger amusement wholly inappropriate to the subject. This happened today when reading a New York Times piece (reg rqd) about the arrest of a man identified as an al Qaeda bigwig, Abu Faraj al-Libbi. (In passing, 80 can't help thinking the US administration still regards al Qaeda as a hierarchical organization like Ian Fleming's SPECTRE, rather than a loose network that enables disparate and otherwise independent groups of terrorists - but that's another story) The details of his capture  included this description "Two Pakistani intelligence officials said a tip early Monday led to a suspected hideout in Mardan. When intelligence officials arrived, he fled on a motorbike. They pursued him, with two of them disguised as burka-clad women, until Mr. Libbi holed up in a house." 80 cannot help but wonder, just how fast can you move wearing a burka? Two guys wearing tents running after a speeding motorbike must have been quite a sight.....more Inspector Clousseau than James Bond. (Update - despite all the antics it now seems they have no bigwig after all, but a very small fish.)

Backwards Preacher Man - a short while ago 80 mentioned the story of Microsoft and the minister, one Dr. Ken Hutcherson of the Antioch Bible Church in Redmond (see Microgonesoft?). Hutcherson claimed he, or more accurately his threats, caused Microsoft to withdraw support for a state bill that aims to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, a claim 80, at the time, doubted. Apparently Hutcherson feels his faith justifies homophobia, but his actions have attracted scrutiny from many unsympathetic to his prejudices. The Cleveland Plain Dealer does not beat about the bush with an article called "'Lovable' minister preaches hatred" by Connie Schultz. What she is bothered about is not his religiously-inspired prejudice, let's face it, sadly gay-bashing preachers are a dime a dozen, no, she is concerned about the veneer of good humor that shrouds Hutcherson's real motives. As she says, "What I find most troubling about Hutcherson is the charm he brings with every blow to civil liberties. His wit and self-deprecatory humor make for real entertainment, and laughter is a great way to disguise the hate he's peddling." He also uses the fact that he is an African-American (whatever happened to black? Many African-Africans find the term African-American downright silly) to back up his assertion that he understands what it is like to be on the receiving end of prejudice. To 80 this makes it all the more baffling that he in his turn is prejudiced against homosexuality - is he worried that it might be made compulsory? He also is sure that Jesus, who never mentions gays in the Gospels, would "...would have expelled homosexuals." It is an indication of the size of his ego that Hutcherson has the confidence to put words in his deity's mouth. 80 wonders what else Jesus failed to mention that Hutcherson would like to invent. But just how accurate is this bigmouthed preacher's claim that he scared Microsoft with a software boycott into acceding to his demands? This piece from Stranger.com informs us that "Minister and Microsoft Executive Offer Wildly Different Versions of Meeting." Now there's a hard call to make, who's lying, the Beast of Redmond or a religious bigot? Sandeep Kaushik's piece tells us that Microsoft, no doubt somewhat embarrassed and under fire from gay activists, is disputing the minister's claims of influence, although not convincingly. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer denies that Hutcherson influenced the decision to drop support for the legislation and that the decision had already been made. As Kaushik shows, the whole thing has turned into a "yes you did, no I didn't" schoolyard-style spat. The upshot is that no one comes out with any credit whatsoever. Microsoft should not have withdrawn support, whether they were influenced by the preacher or not, they have no justification for their volte-face. Hutcherson has no place trying to push his bigoted views onto others no matter how he sugar-coats his prejudices - he is yet another unpleasant symptom of America's slide into a hypocritical theocracy. Land of the free? Not if you are gay it seems.

George Bush will be talking a lot about democracy during his forthcoming trip to Russia, Latvia and Georgia but he couldn't endure the real thing. The British electoral process, flawed though it undoubtedly is, comes far closer to that ideal than Dubya could dare to imagine.This is summed up nicely by a quote from Julian Borger writing in the Guardian on how the election was seen in Washington, DC. "Among so many mixed opinions of the big picture, there were a few things Washington's political class could agree on. Several pundits felt there was something raw and viscerally democratic about the way, the father of a dead soldier could directly confront the prime minister at Sedgefield, and say his piece while the nation studied Mr Blair's face. It could never happen to the president." Damn' right it couldn't.

Talking With Dawkins - if you read only one thing this week (apart from this paragraph obviously) do take a minute or two to read the interview with Richard Dawkins by Gordy Slack at Salon.com. You will need to go through a couple of pages of ads to reach it but it is well worth that minimal inconvenience. 80 was tempted to lift some quotes to give a flavor of the discourse, but the trouble with Dawkins is that almost every sentence qualifies - 80 would have ended merely reprinting the entire interview and no doubt attracting the attention of copyright lawyers. Given this, one representative quote will have to act as an enticement, should one be needed. In answer to the question "How would we be better off without religion?" Dawkins said "We'd all be freed to concentrate on the only life we are ever going to have. We'd be free to exult in the privilege -- the remarkable good fortune -- that each one of us enjoys through having been being born. An astronomically overwhelming majority of the people who could be born never will be. You are one of the tiny minority whose number came up. Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one. The world would be a better place if we all had this positive attitude to life. It would also be a better place if morality was all about doing good to others and refraining from hurting them, rather than religion's morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment." There's plenty more where that came from - do read the interview. (Here is another interview from 1995 courtesy of Skeptic.com called Darwin's Dangerous Disciple)

Bananas in Kansas - a couple of things needs to be straightened out here - Intelligent Design (ID) is merely the deceitful wing of the creationist movement. The IDer's evasions, when asked exactly who or what their Designer is, are as pathetic as they are unconvincing. Documentary evidence has been around for a good while (see Wedge Cat) that they believe the Designer to be the Judaeo-Christian god and they are dissembling when they say anything else. Given that ID is little more than a front, this reduces the opposition to evolution to one group, the creationists, whether they try to give their nonsense a scientific gloss or not. When I say one group this is not to imply that all creationists agree with each other, but the majority of them in America believe in a young Earth, Noah's flood and all the other biblical myths. What many folk don't realize is that in trying to twist and misinterpret reality to fit their beliefs they not only repudiate evolution but also biology, geology, physics and astronomy. And these are the people putting evolution "on trial" in Kansas right now. In this article in the Washington Post (reg rqd)  the first paragraph encapsulates what is really happening in the dispute about the teaching of evolution in the science class, " Witnesses trying to persuade Kansas officials to encourage more criticism of evolution in public school classrooms are making statements some scientists say betrayed creationist views." More damning is the observation that witnesses in the hearing had not even read the very science standards that they are trying to replace - and neither had "two of three presiding board members". So these people are trying to do away with standards that they haven't even bothered to familiarize themselves with. Now why is this so? Are they just lazy or is the document too difficult for them or do they not need to read it having made up their minds already on religious grounds? Any one of the three, or a combination is likely. Typical of the witnesses is a biology instructor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, Nancy Bryson who told the Post that life originating from molecules is "..utterly impossible". She then goes on to say "In my personal opinion, I believe there is an intelligent designer." Where is the evidence presented by this woman? All we have is an argument from incredulity backed up by her personal opinion. On this basis how does she qualify as a witness for anything but her own beliefs? One of the two board members who could not be bothered to take the time to read the very proposal she opposes, Kathy Martin, says it all, "I'm not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information." Not a word-for-word reader? And this is one of the people who is supposedly competent to decide what children are taught in a science class? Perhaps someone should provide Martin a kindergarten version of the proposal that she can try and get her head around. One also has to wonder on what basis scientific witnesses were selected, such as John Sanford, an associate professor of horticultural sciences at Cornell University who when asked to explain the appearance of humans on the planet answered "My explanation, humbly offered, is that we were specially created." What arrogance - specially created, and since when did humble offerings become scientific evidence?.  It would be interesting to hear his explanation as to why human beings share 50% of their genes with the banana if we are not, however distantly, related. Perhaps his god was working with a limited set of components  - which makes him a rather limited little deity - still, even then, 50% banana doesn't sound much like "..we were specially created". 80 pities the children who will grow up handicapped by the teaching of unscientific nonsense if this bunch have their way. It is enough to drive you half bananas.

The Right Move - further to the piece Backwards Preacher Man it seems that Microsoft has been stung by the adverse criticism and publicity about its retreat in the face of threats from homophobic bigot Dr. Ken Hutcherson of the Antioch Bible Church. The New York Times (reg rqd) tells us that Steve Ballmer, chief exec, sent an email to 35,000 employees in the United States stating, "After looking at the question from all sides, I've concluded that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda." Hutcherson, whose claims that it was his threats that caused Microsoft to remove  support from a bill against discrimination on sexual orientation grounds have not been substantiated, has yet to comment. As 80 pointed out in an earlier piece (Microgonesoft) Hutcherson's threats of boycotting the company's products never did sound very intimidating. Perhaps Microsoft realized how silly and unworkable a Windows boycott would be - the only wonder is what took them so long. Sadly, in common with many of his fellow religionists this apparent setback to the deeply unpleasant Hutcherson is unlikely to teach him that other people's sexuality is none of his damn' business.

Ultra Drivel - not to be outdone by his mom (see Vanquished Virgin) it seems that Jesus has popped up in an ultrasound scan at Toledo Hospital in Ohio. The parents, according to this idiotic ABC news report "...say they received a sign she is special in an ultrasound photo taken about a month ago. After taking a closer look at the ultrasound they say there's an image of Jesus Christ in it. It's an image mom and dad say they can see in two of the ultrasound images taken that day." 80 doesn't wish to say anything to detract from their joy at the birth of a healthy child but it is a sad thought that little Aaliyah's parents will no doubt bring up the child to believe in this drivel. Here is one of the miraculous scans - can you see Jesus' beaming face? No, I thought not.

Conduct Unbecoming..  - "What message are we sending to the world community?....We have sought to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations who himself has been accused of being arrogant, of not listening to his friends, of acting unilaterally, and of bullying those who do not have ability to properly defend themselves. Those are the very characteristics that we are trying to dispel." Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, commenting on the nomination of the wholly unsuitable John R. Bolton (see Mustache Guy). Sadly, the same comments could also describe how most of the rest of the world, and many in the US, see George W Bush's America.
 

Finally, The Answer - to one of life's big questions, if not the biggest, and only just a click away.

"Special", Redefined - Prime Ministers of Britain, past and present, have made much of a so-called "special relationship" with the US. Often this seems to be little more than, as in the 1970s and 80s, the island becoming the US's largest aircraft carrier. A recent instance is Tony Blair's eagerness to join with George Bush's neo-con administration in the ill-planned invasion and occupation of Iraq, which, for all spin applied to it, still looks like a bloody quagmire. A less well-known instance of the Blair government's eagerness to please in the aftermath of the 9/11 atrocity is the change to the extradition procedure (Extradition Act 2003) to the US. This removed the requirement for American prosecutors to present a prima facie ("at first sight") case before a British extradition hearing. Simply put, they need present no evidence. This change, by removing such a check, has greatly speeded up the procedure - but to whose benefit? In February this year, according to this Guardian piece by Simon Bowers, Blair defended the Act as justified and right in a "post September 11" context. So, how many requests have been made under the act? 43, "...of which 22 relate to white-collar crime charges. Only three relate to terrorism suspects." Still, with this special relationship it must make it easier for the Brits to get hold of any miscreants hiding out in the US, right? Wrong - the Bush government has yet to sign a reciprocal agreement. Which means this is a one-way street - a case of you scratch my back and you can scratch your own too. Now you know what is so special about the so-called special relationship - nothing. 80 will be watching the challenge being mounted to this ridiculous state of affairs by the lawyers of the latest white collar suspect that Uncle Sam wants handed over. (see Joshua Rozenberg in the Telegraph for details.) This is yet another instance of a nasty phenomenon that obtains on both sides of the Atlantic - the loss of civil liberties in the name of the "war against terror" that in fact has nothing to do with terrorism - unless you happen to be a Prime Minister trying to justify this nonsense.

Galloway Bites - 80 has never been much of a fan of British MP George Galloway but you have to admire the slapping he gave the US Senate Oil for Food investigator, Senator Norman Coleman. Obviously no one had checked out what a handful Galloway can be, which is why he was handed such a platform to criticize the invasion of Iraq and its continuing bloody consequences.  The whole confrontation was a circus, but it certainly wasn't stroppy George who ended up looking like a clown. This account from The Nation by John Nichols is hardly unbiased reporting but is certainly entertaining enough in its own way. Perhaps Mr Galloway should visit the US more often. (For more on the Oil for Food scam this piece from Capitol Hill Blue and this in the Guardian make for interesting reading. Two words that spring to mind are, cui bono?)
 

What's In a Name? - in Contra Costa county, Northern California, one of the area's beautiful landmarks, Mount Diablo, is under attack. Not the landmark itself, you understand, but its name. This is a favorite spot of 80's for a walk, a picnic and just to take in the scenery, but it seems the name given it by the original Spanish settlers is not good enough for one particular gentleman, Art Mijares. He wants it changed and has applied to the U.S. Board of Geographic Names to do so, according to this SF Gate.com piece. The name he suggests is Mount Kawukum, which he claims is indigenous and means "laughing mountain, everywhere seen." If the reason for the change was driven by the same kind of considerations as the Australian Ayers Rock, named after its European "discoverer" and now called by its original (and aboriginal) name, Uluru, one could have some sympathy with Mijares but this is not the case. He wants it changed because he thinks it is named after an imaginary bogeyman, otherwise known as Mr Scratch, Old Nick or the Devil. So what if it is? This is yet another tiresome example of a whiny Christian wanting to change or censor something because of his superstitious fear. If it's not Hallowe'en or Harry Potter it's Mount Diablo. A recent local example quoted in the SFGate article is the change of name from Diablo Street to Antioch Street in nearby Vallejo, after the Antioch Church of God had complained. Now this church probably thinks Antioch is a nice Christian name and that city, now in Southern Turkey, was indeed an early center of Christian activity. What they probably don't know is that it was originally founded by the pagan Seleucid dynasty, descendants of one of Alexander the Great's generals, Seleucus. A later Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes, was notorious for occupying Jerusalem and desecrating the temple there, a temple in which, rebuilt by Herod the Great, the  bible says Jesus and his disciples worshipped. (There is also the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, but that's another story.) Happily the SFGate piece takes Mijares' concerns lightly - it seems even his suggested name, Kawukum, does not exist in the Californian Indian languages. It appears that Mijares does not know what the devil he is talking about. It is a beautiful mountain by any name and if Mount Diablo has been good enough since the early 19th century there is no point in changing it now to pander to the superstitions of the ignorant. For explanations of many names in Mount Diablo State Park, including the mountain, take a look here. For those of you who don't want this pointless name change to happen go to SaveMountDiablo.org and join the campaign to stop this nonsense in its tracks. Oh, by the way, if you are up there anytime enjoying Mount D's natural beauty and you catch a glimpse of a guy with horns and a tail - that'll be 80 out for a stroll. (By a strange coincidence Contra Costa features in the current View - see here)

Shredded Parsley - 80 has mentioned the Humanist Network News on several occasions. It is a free weekly compendium of news items and comment from a (surprise, surprise) humanist perspective. Based in the US it regularly features news from all around the world, with input from particularly Canada and the UK. It is one of the public faces of an educational non-profit organization, The Institute for Humanist Studies (IHS), which is a think tank whose mission is to promote greater public awareness, understanding, and support for humanism. The Institute specializes in pioneering new technology and methods for the advancement of humanism. You can sign up to receive a copy on their website or simply click the link in the left margin of this page. One regular feature is a book review section, and for the last five weeks Kenneth W Krause has been looking at Pastor Rod Parsley's Silent No More: Bringing Clarity to America... While Freedom Still Rings. Over this time Krause has skilfully dissected and examined the worldview  of Parsley, as enshrined in his book, and finds it seriously wanting. Parsley, founder of the Center for Moral Clarity, is one of a growing number of religionists in the US and elsewhere who feel constricted by the separation of Church and State and would like to see their religious beliefs given the force of law. Right from the start Krause shows us the mind behind the book, "[T]his book isn't designed to move you to think great thoughts," confesses Rod Parsley.......in the introduction to his new book, Silent No More. One could at least credit the pastor with candor and consistency, I suppose, had he not recorded the sentence, "I don't apologize for writing a book that requires thought," only one short paragraph earlier. Confused? So was I, until I grudgingly accepted that both con and contradiction are core elements of Parsley's style." To read this whole fascinating and highly recommended review click here. A look at Parsley's book on Amazon.com is also informative, especially about the company it keeps. This is represented by the list of other books purchased by buyers of Silent No More, which include "The Maker's Diet: The 40 Day Health Experience That Will Change Your Life Forever" and "The American Prophecies: Ancient Scriptures Reveal Our Nation's Future". Several readers' reviews are full of gushing praise for the book. Here's one that seems to encapsulate Parsley's target audience "Courageous and Truthful ....The book just confrms what others before him have been saying and proclaiming: Islam is a threat to human civilization....Christianity is being viciously attacked by liberal politicians in Washington and other anti-Christian groups, now a humble preacher decided to be "silent not (sic) more."" 80 wonders which liberal politicians these might be - certainly not the ones in the majority right now. As a counterbalance to this there is a review that is a model of brevity and which 80 feels hits this particular nail on the head, "Utter Bovine Scat - Another example of a fundy who thinks that unless he has the power to force all of us to conform to his thinking that he is being discriminated against. Full of lies and half truths." This last quote is  Krause's summation from his review, "The pastor quite correctly observed that “people are grasping for spirituality at any price.” But I hope “any price” will not include the purchase of this book, because I would feel especially sorry for any person who bought it expecting to learn something."

Empathy Lesson - here is a suggestion for Pastor Parsley (see above) and others like him that yearn for a theocracy. Try and use your limited intellect to imagine how ghastly and dreadful you would find life under the Taleban or the mullahs of Iran. Got that picture in your head? Good, now try and understand that is exactly how 80 and many, many others feel about your projected Christian state.

Stephen in Wonderland - it can be very sad to watch an individual's retreat from reality but in the case of Stephen Green, of loony pressure group Christian Voice, it can afford a great deal of amusement. In Britain it is traditional that an incoming government's proposed program of legislation is announced in the Queen's Speech, whereby the monarch is obliged to parrot whatever has been written for her by the politicians. The real thing is pantomime enough, but it is obviously far too close to the real world for Green, who has produced his own weirdo Christian fundamentalist version for the monarch to mouth - a Green's Speech if you will. Upon reading this document the first observation is that the spelling and grammar are pretty good, which leads to the conclusion that Green must have had a grown-up to help him. (Although as the speech is downloadable in Word format perhaps it was the blessed St. Clippy who did the work.) Secondly, as has been noted elsewhere, he indulges in the usual cherrypicking of biblical laws, a common practice with religious nuts. There is little need to discuss his ravings point by point as we have heard it all before, ad nauseam. The main impression 80 gets from this document is that Green is retreating into a never-never land. He is clearly losing his struggle with reality and this imaginary Queen's speech is only more evidence of that. His fantasy talebanisation of  Britain would be repugnant to everyone, bar a few of his fellow loonies. He seems to have slipped up though, for search as 80 may, there is no clause proclaiming Green as Archbishop-General of Great Britain. No doubt he will rectify this omission in the near future. Purely in the spirit of humanist charity 80 would like to extend to Green the same advice offered to the equally offensive Pastor Parsley - see Empathy Lesson below.
 

Star Wars v Adolf Hitler - if you were concerned about the level of debate in the US Senate over the filibuster row, a look at this page (reg rqd) from the New York Times will not set your mind at rest one tiny bit. As the preparation continues for the forthcoming battle over George Bush's judicial nominees, new standards were set when Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, brought out a picture of Chancellor Palpatine, a character in the new "Star Wars" movie, and noted that he was a Senate leader who broke rules to amass power."As millions of Americans go to see this film in the weeks ahead, I sincerely hope that it doesn't mirror actions being contemplated in the Senate of the United States." Mr. Lautenberg said. There was only one thing left for Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania to do, and that was to play the Nazi card. In blaming the Democrats for breaking with Senate tradition by their tactics he said, "It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying: 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' " Later, regretting his remark Santorum said "....it was a mistake and I meant no offense." Somehow 80 doesn't think exchanges like these add anything to the debate and succeed in making the whole process sound like brats squabbling in a school yard.

CLOOB! - after reading the astrologers' mealy-mouthed spinning of their less than spot on predictions for the UK general election, which shows them no better informed than anyone else and a damn' sight sillier, 80 was reminded of a word recently coined by Tony Youens - cloob. Tony defines it as "..actually shorthand for “complete load of old bollocks” and although it can be applied to anything supernatural it is by no means limited to that field. For example homeopathy is also a cloob." Although abuse is considered a fairly low tactic in a debate the word cloob is more than justified when describing the same tired old nonsensical claims that, even though they have no supporting evidence whatsoever, are endlessly recycled by the gullible, the stupid and the just plain crooked. It also nicely describes New Age silliness, such as the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" Tony has also added a new page to his site that, while it is still in an early stage, is destined to grow into an extremely useful resource. The reasoning behind Instant Skeptic, for that is its name, is described thus, "It would be accurate to say that some of the more frequent questions I am asked are concerned with why I don't actually believe certain things. Below is a list (which I hope will grow and grow) explaining in very concise terms some of my reasoning. Of course giving such narrow accounts leaves me open to any number of retorts and comebacks. Nevertheless I think it's worth nailing my colours to the mast. I've called it 'Instant Skeptic' as after a quick read through you too will be equipped to bluff your way in skepticism." So far he has a useful section on critical thinking and a wide range of subjects, including Ghosts and Haunting, Telekinesis, Mediumship and Dowsing, which he has been tactful enough not to put under the heading Cloob. This does not mean he has not been scathing in his criticism - he has, and rightly so - but this is leavened with a good deal of humor. Highly recommended. (As is his piece in which he lays bare the mediumistic trick/art of cold reading, Psychic Sophistry.)

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant. As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic in the Times. "Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do."

May 23rd 2005

PABAAH - here is a charming little website that will find favor with those who believe there is a liberal left-wing anti-Christian media conspiracy in the US - Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood. (Most anyone else will mistakenly assume the site is a clever parody on a par with the Landover Baptist Church. Sadly, it's not.) PABAAH represents the sort of folk that are scared of their own shadow and see the hand of those who would do America down in anything that doesn't fit their own warped world view. Here you can sign various petitions that really address all that is wrong with the world - "Please Sign Our Petition Asking AG Gonzales To Charge Michael Moore With Treason" or "Sign The "No Foreign-Born Presidents" Petition" (sorry Arnie) and the "Kick The U.N. Out Of The U.S.A. Petition" (Scary Mustache Guy just has to have signed that one). A brief look at the headlines that adorn their ravings will give you a flavor of things - the flavor being mixed rancid and bitter with a soupcon of sourness. "Another activist judge defies the will of the people" and "Boycott Star Wars And George Lucas" and "Hanoi Jane's Movie Out This Weekend" (my, that one's topical). Hold on, we know these nuts can't stand Fonda, but what's the beef with Lucas and Star Wars? It seems that the PABAAH bunch have been frightened by their own reflection in the mirror. In the movie, which 80 has not seen, a manipulative politician builds up, exaggerates and even manufactures various security scares in order to overthrow the republic and install an Evil Empire. The constant litany of threats to the state is enough to give this politician and his minions an excuse to roll back the freedoms previously enjoyed - and to do so with the ignorant connivance of a frightened and manipulated people. This is hardly an original storyline and could apply to many times in history, such as the rise of the first Roman emperor Augustus or the takeover of the state by Hitler voted in by the cowed and misled people of Germany in the 1930s. 80 is sure that with little effort the reader can think of many other instances where this has taken place. Strangely, the perpetrators of PABAAH, instead of being reminded of historical parallels, choose to see things in a contemporary light and treat this sci-fi extravaganza as an assault on their beloved leader and commander-in-chief George W Bush. Now why on earth would they do that? For them to immediately assume the movie plot is an attack on Bush they must be even more paranoid than originally thought - or is it that the fit is just too exact to ignore, even for rabid partisans such as themselves? For more on the originator of PABAAH, one Jon Alvarez, take a look at ChronWatch. Also check out the Urban Dictionary for an interesting and accurate definition of PABAAH. In the service of accuracy 80 would humbly suggest that the first word of the group's name be amended - Pathetic fits far better than Patriotic. Check and see how many of your favorite actors and musicians are on these clowns' Boycott List. This version of the list is annotated with the comments or actions that attracted PABAAH's attention. These include Dustin Hoffman  "I believe the administration has taken the events of 9/11 and has manipulated the grief of the country",  Robert Redford "Bush is pursuing a dangerous and self-defeating path... and Bush offers an absence of leadership..." and Julia Roberts "The man's embarrassing. He's not my president and he never will be either". Looking at most of the comments they are not anti-American as such, but anti-George Bush and the invasion of Iraq. Alvarez and chums obviously think this is one and the same thing. Wrong.

Talking of Blacklists - (see above) Alvarez is just following a trend. Take a look here - and then check out the rest of the piece, Dangerous Clowns by Pamela Troy - this stuff is genuinely frightening.

Journalism? No! Uncritical Plug? Yes! - you would be forgiven for thinking a journalist on a national broadsheet newspaper would investigate extraordinary claims in a balanced and rigorous manner - you could say the same of someone considered to be an expert on buying used cars. Both, one might think, would be hard-nosed professionals - but this article in the UK Daily Telegraph reveals that this is not the case. In what is a text book example of how not to report the claims of so-called Complementary Alternative Medicine (sCAM) Christina Hopkinson tells how TV presenter Quentin Willson's son was treated by a chiropractor for what was believed to be autism. Nowhere in the article is an actual diagnosis quoted, although given the poor standard of the piece a charitable soul might say it was merely forgotten. This charitable view is not 80's. The actual diagnoses quoted are "dyspraxia and dyslexia", it was only the child's parents that "...began to think that Max was autistic as he demonstrated symptoms that are often associated with the disorder: he walked on tiptoes, had an obsession with soft clothes and didn't like labels next to his skin." A medical basis for their belief is not given. It was another parent, who thought the child's "..skeleton was out of alignment and that he should see the chiropractor she had used, Deirdre Edwards". On no more evidence than this the Willsons consulted Edwards, a practitioner of McTimoney chiropractic. "Once she had checked that it was safe to give chiropractic help, Deirdre began to palpate his body. "There are seven bones in the neck," she says, "and four of his were severely misaligned, affecting the natural balance throughout the rest of his body."" One wonders how she checked that manipulation of the child's neck was safe - it is also worth asking whether the Willsons looked into chiropractic beyond the advice of someone who was already a patient. Were they aware of the risk of stroke from chiropractic neck manipulation? Had they looked at the pseudoscience behind this therapy? Perhaps they were so desperately concerned with the child's behavior that they either did not bother to investigate or discounted the widely available information concerning this particular quackery? Willson is now described as being an "evangelist" for chiropractic believing that the perceived improvement in his child is evidence of its effectiveness. Evangelist, with its religious overtones of faith, ie belief without evidence, is a particularly fitting word to use. A good result for the Willson's case is obviously enough for them, but it does not explain why Hopkinson's article is little more than an extended plug for a therapy that is at best no more effective than conventional treatment for lower back pain. Its efficacy in cases of "autism" or any of the myriad other complaints its proponents claim to treat successfully is unproven, and evidence exists that neck manipulation can be a very dangerous and potentially crippling procedure. For those that think this is an exaggeration please take a few minutes to look at the shocking videos here and peruse this article. Two things are certainly proven after reading Hopkinson's piece, firstly, working for a national paper does not necessarily make you a good journalist (although it can, it seems, allow you to be a publicist for one of the most lucrative forms of quackery) and secondly, knowing a lot about used cars does not mean that you cannot be deceived by your own hopes and desires.

"The tenets of skepticism do not require an advanced degree, as most successful used-car buyers demonstrate. The whole idea of a democratic application of skepticism is that everyone should have the essential tools to effectively and constructively evaluate claims to knowledge. All science asks is to employ the same levels of skepticism we use in buying a used car or in judging the quality of analgesics or beer from their TV commercials."

Carl Sagan

 ......or complementary /alternative medicine claims that are unsupported by acceptable standards of evidence. (also see Faith-Based Medicine and Confessions of a Quackbuster)

Dangerous Fools - here is an article by Daniel Pipes that shows the dreadful consequences of mixing religion, scientific ignorance, and an irrational and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory - in this case countless children suffering from polio, a disease that should have been eradicated by now. In fact eradication was the plan of the World Health Organization, and it was very nearly achieved, but in 2003 it ran into the Muslim population of Northern Nigeria, which had been fed on a diet of lies by Ibrahim Datti Ahmed, president of Nigeria's Supreme Council for Shari'a Law. This idiot spread the story that the vaccine was adulterated with an agent that caused infertility and/or AIDS, and was believed by thousands as a trusted authority figure. Despite many assurances the misinformation has spread not only in Nigeria but elsewhere, even as far as India, with tragic results. Those that think such an attitude to vaccination is limited to poorly educated folk in third world countries are very much mistaken - there is a  vocal "anti-vax" movement in many so-called developed countries. Most recent are the scares about the combined MMR vaccination that have resulted in many parents choosing not to have their children protected in this way. In this week's Bad Science in the Guardian, Ben Goldacre has some things to say about the bloody fools that persist in spreading misinformation about MMR and notes that the incidence of mumps in the UK is soaring. As Goldacre so rightly points out if these diseases only struck the fools that refused vaccination it would be perhaps only just, but it is their children and the rest of the population who are endangered. For reliable information on vaccines check out The Green Light, like Number 80, a proud member of the Anti-Quackery Ring.

Culture of Life - but not for all. Some interesting comments have been made over the bill, sponsored by Arlen Specter, to expand US federal financing for human embryonic stem cell research. The most ridiculous was uttered by House majority leader and demagog, Tom DeLay. "An embryo is a person, a distinct internally directed, self-integrating human organism. We were all at one time embryos ourselves. So was Abraham. So was Muhammad. So was Jesus of Nazareth." Wrong, an embryo has only the potential to be a person, and this includes the thousands of embryos currently trashed by fertility clinics or spontaneously (and naturally) aborted in early pregnancy. Does DeLay want to bring all these to term? He may have his hands full. As for his distinguished list of former embryos, we can add Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin - in fact every human being who ever lived. 80 certainly agrees with George Bush that every human life (excluding those on Death Row, of course) is something to be cherished, but shadowing every one of the happy and healthy babies and toddlers with which he surrounded himself in the White House, there were many, many thousands of others. These are the children who were born with AIDS because their parents were given only fine words about abstinence instead of condoms, these are the children that have died in Iraq in the aftermath of the botched invasion, these are the children who will suffer from the slackening of pollution control legislation. Surely the life of a child is to be valued more than a collection of cells in a petri dish? (see The President's Stem Cell Theology (reg rqd) in the New York Times and Jerome Groopman's piece in the Washington Post, Beware of Stem Cell Theology (reg rqd))

Quotes - "Orthodox Jews are not merely evangelicals who read the Bible right to left." Nathan Diament, public policy director of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. While they have seen eye to eye with Bush and his pushy Christian pals over many "moral issues" the stem cell debate is where Orthodox Jews draw the line. According to the Washington Post (reg rqd) the Union declared that the "..potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life." and "Moreover, the traditional Jewish perspective does not accord an embryo outside of the womb the full status of humanhood and its attendant protections." It is more than rich to hear Eric Cohen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, writing in the National Review, lecture the Orthodox Jews, saying that they "..seem to have forgotten even the minimal liberal wisdom of tolerance". Liberal wisdom? 80 is amazed the very phrase did not crash his word processor.

Nessie's Gnasher - the pursuit of cryptozoology, covers a wide spectrum, ranging from the scientifically plausible to the downright silly (see Crouching Godbear, Hidden Bunyip). This is illustrated by two stories that have appeared this week, although to be strict the first is not actually cryptozoology as the creature sought is known to have existed - at least until it ran into gun-toting farmers. Of the four definitions of cryptozoology found here only the one from Wikipedia covers the search for the "Tasmanian Tiger". "Cryptozoology is the study of rumored or mythological animals that are presumed (at least by the researcher) to exist, but for which conclusive proof does not yet exist; or are generally considered extinct, but occasionally reported." The Tasmanian Tiger, actually a carnivorous marsupial (Thylacinus cynocephalus) is thought to have been extinct for 70 years after a cull by farmers and others out to protect their livestock - and keen to collect a government bounty offered on the unfortunate creatures. This BBC report describes the modern day hunt for any survivors - only this time with cameras instead of guns. Unconfirmed sightings have been made over the years and there is an outside chance a small population may still exist in isolated areas. Unlike the subject of the second story, the Loch Ness Monster. Bill McDonald from Arizona, described as a forensics expert by The Inverness Courier, is offering $100,000 for a tooth from Nessie. He seems undeterred that most folk think it is actually a piece of antler. The tooth was claimed to have been discovered by a couple of students earlier this year, lodged in the ribcage of a dead deer. The pictures that claim to show the discovery and extraction of the tooth, are laughable (the video wouldn't play). These are their only "evidence" as the pair claim the fang itself was confiscated by a man claiming to a water bailiff. (The smell of something fishy is overpowering.) Bearing in mind the old animosity between the two clans following a massacre in 1692 (but see here) a local photographer Gary Campbell, president of the Loch Ness Monster Fan Club, had this to say "As a Campbell in the Highlands, if a MacDonald is offering $100,000 for a bit of dead deer, then I'd be happy to offer him a full set of teeth." A case of the canny meeting the uncanny perhaps, with the hoax explanation way out in front. Talking of hoaxes this article from SFGate.com, is full of them, including the quite disgusting story of one Mary Toft. "In 1762, Mary flabbergasted her doctor by seeming to give birth to rabbits. Soon top medical advisers, including the king's surgeon, investigated, witnessed the bizarre births and vouched for them. Only when she was sequestered and stricken with infection did Mary fess up: Craving a little attention, she had been inserting dead rabbits into her vagina." Happily none of the other hoaxes mentioned are so nauseating. Vicki Haddock has written an amusing piece which contains this wonderful quote by Constance Rourke on the journalistic hoaxes of Edgar Allen Poe, "His purpose in the hoaxes was to render his readers absurd, to reduce them to an involuntary imbecility." Poe would have found plenty of employment in the credulous tabloids of our own day that fall over themselves to report sightings of the Virgin Mary, WMD, psychic detectives, spoon bending or even dear old Nessie. (And now it seems Queen Elizabeth II in a fried egg)

Quotes - from South Korean scientist Woo-Suk Hwang, on the Bush administration's blinkered attitude to stem cell research. "The scientific effort to resolve the pain of patients with incurable conditions is very honorable, and I believe no mere individual politician or party can stop the historic trend, solving these problems is a common responsibility of humanity." And on using the correct terminology, "I firmly reject the term human cloning, this is a scientific activity called somatic nuclear cell transfer, and in no part does it involve the physiological process of fertilisation of eggs by sperm." And on morality, "Let's say we have a microproduct just 100 micrometers long, made through nuclear transfer technology, and let's say we have a human being who has lived in pain all his life, to argue that there is a balance (in considering the humanity of the two) would not be ethical." (Reuters article)

For further information on Intelligent Design creationism see The Designer-of-the-Gaps Revisited by Richard Wein and Design Yes, Intelligent No by Massimo Pigliucci.

Update to Smithsonian Institute Blues - it is reported in the Washington Post that the Smithsonian has backed off somewhat in the matter of showing the Intelligent Design creationist movie The Privileged Planet. It now seems that "The film will be shown, but the screening fee required by the museum (in this case, $16,000) won't be accepted and the museum will withdraw its customary co-sponsorship." A statement issued by the Institution says "We have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research." Well d'uh. This still leaves the question how the hell did they get into this situation in the first place? The Post article tells us that the movie was screened for content on two occasions and reviewed by "...the Associate Director for Research and Collections of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History". Did the director, Hans-Dieter Sues, a graduate of the University of Alberta and Harvard University sleep through the whole thing? Perhaps when he has had time to wipe the egg off his face he would care to share with the world his view of the movie, and why he thought it merited premiering in a scientific institution. The answer given to the Post by spokesman Randall Kremer as to whether the Institution had made a mistake in agreeing to host the event is waffle "We don't look at it in terms of whether we made a mistake or not. Our statement speaks for itself." 80 predicts a future career in politics for Mr Kremer - perhaps when Scott McClellan retires.

Update to the Update - for the final word on the Smithsonian debacle (see below) and the subsequent recovery of its former standing in 80's view, see the latest issue of the JREF weekly commentary. To jump straight to the relevant section click here - but if you do you, will miss a lot of other good stuff, so why not begin at the beginning? In this issue incidentally, is a report on the completion of a preliminary test for the JREF prize. This was organized by the Association for Skeptical Enquiry (ASKE) and involved Tony Youens (no stranger to this page) and Nick Pullar, chairman of discussion group Skeptics in the Pub. (A link to the latest of James Randi's weekly newsletters is always in the sidebar of this page - as are links to ASKE and Tony Youens' Commentary. 80 is a member of ASKE, as noted here, but his opinions are entirely his own responsibility)

15th - 26th June 2005
Durban International Film Festival
screening date TBC

22nd - 26th June 2005
Boston International Film Festival
screening date TBC

23rd - 31st July 2005
“Being Human” documentary Film Festival, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
coinciding with Cairns Peace Week

24th - 28th August 2005
Tahoe/Reno International Film Festival (T-RIFF)
screening date TBC

Jack Plug - for more on Jack Pound and his music take a look at his website.  80 is currently enjoying a couple of his albums, Robbery and Murder, a compilation, and his latest, King Troubadour's Tears. Jack is "...a highly skilled guitarist and songwriter, his bluesy, often quirky style is particularly appreciated by discerning literary audiences.....whilst the rest of us just enjoy the music".

Possessed by Superstition - It has been reported in the newspaper stories about the religious abuse of an orphan girl by those charged with her protection and wellbeing that small churches, meeting in impromptu settings abound among the African community in London and other British cities. The rise of these organizations, and the competition between them, is a great cause of concern for community leaders who see at close hand their malign influence. In order to hang onto their congregations the "pastors" of these churches use fear of the devil and possession by evil spirits to scare them into compliance. The churchgoers are in general poorly educated and genuinely believe these pastors are in touch with God. (also see the story of Gilbert Deya and the Miracle Babies)  One leader of Britain's Angolan community told the Guardian, in an article by Vikram Dodd on the scale of the problem, that "In our community we are scared a lot of witches. The main hold the church has over people is making them scared about witches and spiritual possession." The sad result of this organized superstition (which all religion is at heart) has been seen in the case of a little girl tortured by those who were supposed to care for her. They believed that in order to drive the evil spirit out of the child it was necessary to inflict pain thereby rendering the eight-year-old's body an unsuitable demonic host. The result was that she was tortured over a period of months. She was "... beaten with a belt and a stiletto shoe, cut with a kitchen knife and had chilli peppers rubbed into her eyes." What could drive people to be so unspeakably cruel? Religious beliefs. This case was the disgusting result of a blending of fundamentalist Christianity and African religion, but evidence is widely available that the African input is not necessary for this type of child abuse to occur - fundamentalist Christianity, in particular the literal belief in bible stories of possession, is quite enough on its own. In light of this recent case it makes an article in the Guardian called "How to get the punters in the pews" by Colin Sedgwick, pastor of the Lindsay Park Baptist church, even more repellent for promoting the view that churches which "... tend to lay stress on the Bible as both authoritative and relevant - something that needs to be engaged with, not simply read and then left." are to be admired and encouraged. The tales of possession by spirits in the primitive Gospel stories are no different from the beliefs imported from Africa that played a part in the abuse of the little girl. Society needs to be rid of such pernicious nonsense and the primitive and magical tales in the Christian bible recognized for what they are. It is indicative of the widespread nature of the danger to children and others of these superstitions that the London Metropolitan Police are to establish a "faith-based crime" unit. So much for the offensive and oft-repeated claims by religionists that one needs faith in order to be a moral person. All the while that supernaturalism, in the primitive form espoused by fundamentalists or the supposedly more sophisticated version peddled by the likes of the Archbishop of Canterbury or Pope Ratzinger, is held up as something admirable and worthy in our society there will be an excuse for abuse of various kinds, mental and physical. This BBC article on the torture case and its background is titled  "Abuses masquerading as religion" As usual this is mealymouthed pussyfooting - it is no masquerade, it is the real thing. Organized religion is nothing more than the employment of superstition to build hierarchies of power. (If you have the stomach for it check out Faith-Based News for a litany of evils caused by religion in today's world)

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that WE are the ones that need help?" Mark Twain

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal

"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing."
Hypatia, Librarian of Alexandria

Tiny Tom and the Aliens - it is not often that 80 finds himself in agreement with diminutive megastar and Scientology evangelist Tom Cruise but on the subject of alien life there is a measure, albeit small, of accord. Cruise has been in the media a lot lately promoting his new film War of the Worlds, bugging the hell out of Brooke Shields, waxing lyrical over his new love and, as ever, pushing his nutty cult. The alien life subject came up when German tabloid newspaper, Bild, asked the small but perfectly formed Cruise whether he believed in aliens after he stated that he did not think human beings were alone in the universe. 80 too does not believe that life is the sole preserve of planet Earth and that it is likely, at least at a microbial stage, to be fairly common. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, if it isn't, it's a hell of waste of space. Whether that life has evolved into multicellular forms or become what we humans like to call intelligent is a whole other matter and, in 80's view, far less likely. This is where 80 and Cruise part company as it is an article of faith for Scientologists that intelligent alien life exists and has visited Earth. The best capsule description of this belief is from an article in Wired "Hubbard's secret scriptures teach that 75 million years ago, an evil galactic overlord named Xenu solved the galaxy's overpopulation problem by freezing excess people and transporting the bodies to Teegeeack, now called Earth. After the hapless travelers were defrosted, they were chained to volcanoes that were blown up by hydrogen bombs -- and their disembodied spirits continue to haunt mankind today." Which oddly enough brings us back to the aforementioned Brooke Shields, whom Cruise criticized for using an antidepressant drug whilst suffering from postpartum depression. This is in fact part of Scientology's assault upon psychiatry (and science) in general which has been going on ever since writer, fantasist and liar, L Ron Hubbard, (see Bare-Faced Messiah) dreamed up his own cod version of psychiatry called Dianetics. (Dianetics has since been subsumed into the "religion" of Scientology which appears to be largely a ruse to enjoy tax breaks in the US and avoid criticism. Playing the religion card  allows them to portray themselves as "persecuted" when their idiot beliefs are questioned.)  Psychiatry, at least as the rest of the world understands it, conflicts with Dianetics and so it is a Scientologist's duty to attack the enemy at every opportunity. If Xenu's "..disembodied spirits are plaguing mankind" they are the real cause of mental ill-health and psychiatry is an evil plot to drug people. One of Scientology's brilliant ploys is to use media stars who belong to the cult as spokespeople, thereby taking advantage of Western society's obsession with celebrities and their views, no matter how nonsensical. (Think Madonna and the Kabbalah). Any attempt to seriously challenge psychiatry would involve the Scientologists revealing just how daft their religion is. Consequently it is much easier to use mouthpieces such as Cruise, safely ensconced on the couch in a talk show, protected by his host's sycophancy ( Matt Lauer is an honorable exception) and the fear of offending such a big box office draw in order to avoid any serious criticism of the drivel he spouts. This mixture of celebrities and cultish activities has led 80 in the past to describe Scientology as sinister yet clownish - every time Tiny Tom opens his mouth the accuracy of that description is confirmed. (80 has looked at Scientology in Hubbard's Bare Cupboard and also in Narconon is Scientology. For more on the cult 80 recommends Operation Clambake If you meet a Scientologist be sure to ask them about Lisa McPherson)