The View from Number 80

Backwards Glances Index 2005 part 4

A word of warning - owing to the Weekly Glance's attempted topicality some of the links below may be even more ephemeral than usual. (Tip - a search for cached versions of missing sites is often productive using either Google or The Internet Archive Way Back Machine.)

July 9th 2005 Foul Fox

August 13th 2005 Ab Absurdo

September 4th 2005 Coso OOPART

September 6th 2005 Skepticality

September 17th 2005 Two-Timing Tart

July 6th 2005

Morford on Cruise - SFGate's highly original and syntactically-challenged columnist Mark Morford has become concerned about the mental state of movie star and Scientology evangelist Tom Cruise, and finds parallels with another film actor with a god complex in "The Great Tom Cruise Backlash. Will this annoying phase pass, or will Tom become the next super-rich, Mel Gibson-like nutball?" You could never accuse Morford of subtlety but his full on rant style suits some subjects to perfection - taste this paragraph to decide if you want to read more. "It feels like this is all some sort of bizarre precursor to, say, 2015, when Cruise's powerful production company suddenly whips out "The Passion of the Hubbard," depicting the cheesy sci-fi hack writer and Scientology founder as the new Jesus, dancing with 75-million-year-old aliens and battling the evil overlord Xenu while busting "engrams" like water balloons...." (More Morford is archived here. As for Cruise, see Tiny Tom and the Aliens and don't forget to check out these cartoonist's reactions to his antics from Slate. Update - for more on Cruise and Scientology this article by David Rowan raises a few questions that the media ought to have asked. Definitely worth a read).

Aid, AIDS and Africa - if you were running a game reserve who would you have running the place, poachers? Of course not, so as George Monbiot asks in this Guardian article, Africa's new best friends, why are multinational corporations being given so much influence over so-called poverty relief measures such as the US's African Growth and Opportunity Act. Monbiot scathingly examines the built-in nitpicking barriers to fair trade that are an integral part of this "help" - even down to the width of elastic African clothing manufacturers may use to qualify for export to the US. The group responsible for implementation of the act, the Corporate Council for Africa, contains many names that are unlikely to instil confidence in fairer or more sustainable trade, Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Starbucks, Raytheon, Microsoft, and Boeing to name a few. The UK seems determined to follow suit in its employment of suits to implement Business Action for Africa, which includes such benevolent institutions as Shell, British American Tobacco, Standard Chartered Bank, and De Beers. The policy of putting this bunch in charge, many of whom are responsible for so much that is wrong in the West's dealings with Africa, from extraction of natural resources to restrictive trade practices, seems utterly bizarre. Another group that involved itself in the Live8 and Make Poverty History campaigns is the Roman Catholic Church. This too is bizarre in light of the fact the church's blind, unreasoning and unjustifiable campaign against the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS, which is a major contributory factor to many of Africa's woes. This point is taken up with some vigor by a noticeably and justifiably angry Tony Youens in his Commentary - see Make AIDS History? (also see Condom Split and Wicked)

July 7th 2005

London Atrocity - there is one thing the sordid, cowardly murderers who attacked civilians in London today have surely failed to take into account. Such an attack certainly causes fear and suffering, as is the intent, but there is another, far longer lasting effect. This is the quiet and grim determination that the scum that acted today will never succeed in achieving their aims. Simple as that.

July 9th 2005

Foul Fox - there is no atrocity too foul to be exploited by the unscrupulous looking to advantage themselves from the suffering of others. The most famous example was the "good day to bury bad news" memo issued by a British political advisor (spin doctor) even while the dust was still settling in the wake of the 9/11 murders. Now that paragon of high journalistic standards, Fox News, is being deservedly slammed for the mouthings of its minions in the wake of the London Tube and bus attacks. One creep called Brian Kilmeade saw the slaughter as a good thing for knocking global climate change and aid for Africa off the top of the agenda of the G8 meeting in Scotland and replacing it with terrorism. The Guardian quotes him as saying "I think that works to our advantage, in the western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened." Another vulpine jerk, John Gibson sees the London bombings as a response to the award of the 2012 Olympics to the city. This reveals what a deeply stupid person he is - an attack of that nature is not organized overnight and until July 6th no one knew who was going to host the games. Gibson is not only stupid, he is contemptible for his suggestion that it was a pity Paris wasn't chosen "If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?" Finally Brit Hume, Fox's Washington managing editor, seeing the effect of the attack on the stock market could only think of his bank balance "Just on a personal basis ... I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought 'hmm, time to buy'." This clown couldn't even spell empathy let alone tell you what it means. Perhaps these three so-called journalists would like to repeat their offensive and callous remarks to the injured and bereaved in London. 80 guarantees they would receive a warm welcome. (For more on Fox's caring coverage see Media Matters. Also see this by Roger Mosey, head of BBC Television News, on accuracy and honesty in journalism. )

Of Sheep and Swine - Here is an odd little item from BBC news concerning what at first sight appears to be a case of spontaneous ovine mass suicide. It seems that "Turkish shepherds watched in horror as hundreds of their sheep followed each other over a cliff" Apparently the first one went over and the rest followed like...well, like sheep. The suicide theory is not accepted by all investigators including 80, who did a little digging for similar cases. The last time such an apparent mass suicide of quadrupeds occurred was in the vicinity of the country of the Gadarenes, in or around 30 CE. The culprit who caused the stampede, known only as Yeshua, is still sought by the police for wilful damage to property. In this incident a herd of swine was made to run violently down a steep place into the sea, so that they perished in the waters. The similarity of the two incidents is obvious and the involvement of this Yeshua has not been ruled out. Anyone who knows the whereabouts of this menace should contact the authorities immediately. Do not attempt to approach him as he has a dangerous god complex and always travels with a fanatically-devoted all-male entourage, believed to number twelve.

July 10th 2005

Fatwas and Trojans - here are two developments in the wake of the London bombings - one that is welcome (with some reservations) and one that is right up there with the disgusting behavior of the Fox news creeps (see Foul Fox). The UK Independent reports that "Britain's top Muslim scholars are to issue a "fatwa" which will condemn the terrorists behind Thursday's bombings...." In light of the many bombings and murders by extreme Islamists around the world 80's first reaction was, "What kept you?". Whether the scholars hold much sway with the many young Islamists who sympathize with the aims of al Qaeda and other fanatics is another matter, but at least it is a move in the right direction. In an interesting twist that goes beyond mere condemnation of the murderers the scholars also aim to remove any support for them " ...by undermining the religious basis of the terrorists' alleged Islamist ideology and, significantly, by questioning their right to describe themselves as Muslims." The fact that the Quran, in common with the Christian Bible, is full of incitements to violence and cruelty may be something of a showstopper here. The other development is that some moronic script kiddie has released a Trojan which arrives via an email titled "TERROR HITS LONDON". Anyone unwary or daft enough to click on the attachment, which claims to be amateur video footage of the attacks, will be rewarded for their lack of sense by having their PC infected (zombied) and used for spamming and other purposes. This is just the latest attempt to use current news items as bait to ensnare users, a tactic of so-called social engineering.

Moronic Comment - of the week from Jeb Bush as Hurricane Dennis hits Florida. “I think there is a legitimate feeling, ‘Why me? What did I do wrong?'” No Jeb, it is certainly an understandable and irrational reaction but not legitimate. Unless you really believe such meteorological phenomena are affected by individual human actions. Surely even you aren't that dumb - oh I forgot, of course you are.

Subhuman Slur - a short while back (see Legislative Lunacy) 80 wrote "Even in communities where differing religious doctrines are no longer the real cause for division the labels remain, as in Northern Ireland, in order to conveniently identify the others, the ones who are not us. This perception of different religious groups as other, as wrong, as deliberately erring, as outside your special revelation is, as so often in the past, the first step in dehumanizing those seen as different, and so becomes an excuse for their persecution." For an illustration of just such a tactic, and also a lesson in the overpowering arrogance of many religionists, take a look at the outpourings of John Vlazny, Archbishop of Portland and a deluded old bigot, which see the light of day in the Catholic Sentinel. Vlazny laments the fact that "Nowadays nearly one in every six Americans claims no particular religious affiliation. Here in Oregon more than half our fellow citizens identify themselves in a similar fashion." In 80's view this is a cause for hope but naturally the Archbishop takes it as a spur to encourage evangelization of these poor people - typical of his kind he assumes that those unencumbered by his weird superstitions are somehow lacking. In fact this churchman goes further than this, much further, with an outrageous and offensive statement in which he declares "...people of faith must demonstrate to unbelievers and those who are indifferent to God that the only way a person can be truly human is to be religious, to be in relationship with the divine. To be truly and fully human, one must eventually encounter Jesus Christ, the Divine Word, whose good news is meant to be shared with women and men of all cultures." So those who live their lives untrammeled by superstition or those who follow other faiths are less than human, are they? The word arrogance does not really begin to describe the Archbishop's unthinking assumption of superiority for those who share his particular supernatural world view. This is the beginning of a very slippery slope when someone of Vlazny's authority is content to label millions of folk worldwide as subhuman. It is widely believed that when the epithet Nazi is used in any debate that sensible discussion is at an end - and in most cases this is true, but reading Vlazny's piece 80 can't help thinking of the millions of people who were labelled as untermensch as the first step in their eventual extermination. No doubt Vlazny would be horrified and offended at the comparison - tough. If he starts hurling subhuman shit from his pulpit he should not be too surprised when some of it sticks to his chasuble.

July 13th 2005

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

The Elephant is Back - in fact it never went away. The elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge, referred to by Richard Dawkins in the wake of the 9/11 atrocity, is religion, or more specifically the religions of the book, the Abrahamic religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. This book, the Torah, and its mutated offspring the Bible and the Quran, is full of incitements to cruelty, hatred and violence. Religious intolerance to the point of murder is held up as righteous action rewarded by God, as can be seen, for example, in the story of Phineas (Numbers 25:7-8). That these books contain these things cannot be denied, but this uncomfortable fact is ignored, swept under the carpet by the so-called mainstream or moderate religionists who do not wish to confront the violent underpinnings of their faiths. For a fundamentalist everything in the holy book is true and cannot be ignored in this way - in fact the fundamentalists are far closer to the ancient writer's ideals than any modern moderate preacher, rabbi or mullah. The so-called mainstream have diluted the original message, but it is still there, ready to be utilized by people such as whoever transformed some young British men into the suicide squad that hit London on July 7th. Like young people everywhere they were outraged no doubt at the many injustices in the world and wanted to do something about it. This disaffection made them prime targets for others to warp their understandable feelings into a superstitious fanaticism, a wish to strike out violently, an action they were told would end with them taking their place in Paradise. Relatives and friends have described these young murderers as ordinary blokes - except these ordinary blokes carried bombs onto the Tube and a bus, fully aware of the bloody mayhem they were about to cause. They sat on the underground train surrounded by the very people they were about to murder, people of all faiths and colors. This is what religion can do. This violence that runs through the scriptures remains a wellspring to be drawn upon by fanatics to produce yet more zealots ready to die for their god. The question of why an all-powerful deity, creator of the everything, needs minions to carry out murder in his name does not arise. Logic and rationality are left far behind, buried by faith and conviction. The Christian abortion clinic bomber, the murderous Jewish "settler" and the Islamic jihadi are really brothers under the skin, brothers of the book, subject to a brainwashing technique many centuries old - that of religious indoctrination and promises of an afterlife. Whether the shadowy masters who train the cannon fodder, the footsoldiers, the ones who die or get caught, believe their own stories is immaterial, as long as they can use religion to make their dupes to do their bidding. These young Britons and their counterparts elsewhere are a cheap weapon, and to their trainers and handlers their lives are of no more consequence than those of the people they murder. In the short term the British government will crack down on firebrand preachers preaching holy war, labelling them extremists, but in the long term it is vital that the role of religion itself is examined. It is indeed bizarre at the church services in remembrance of those who have died at the hands of fanatical religion to hear comforting phrases read from the same holy books that provided justification for the murders in the first place. If anyone doubts the malign effect of religion, think - when did the news last feature an atheist suicide bomber, an agnostic white supremacist or a humanist queerbasher? (also see Baneful Biblical Basis? and also this piece by Jason Burke writing in The Observer called "The violence that lies in every ideology".

"Nothing in Islam can ever justify the evil actions of the bombers." says Sir Iqbal Sacranie, of the Muslim Council of Britain. He is wrong, it is a sad and deplorable fact that there is far too much that can be used this way. See here.

What Do They Want? - further down this page 80 wrote in the wake of the London bombing that one consequence is "..the quiet and grim determination that the scum that acted today will never succeed in achieving their aims." But what are those aims? Amir Taheri, writing in The Times has summed them up, chillingly and succinctly. "..you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it his divine duty to kill you." Do read his article on the futility of attempting a dialogue with these people. Anyone who thinks it is possible to debate with them and reach any kind of conclusion that they would accept other than total victory is as deluded as they are. Also see Christopher Hitchens writing in the Daily Mirror on the impossibility of accommodation with these fanatics over their "grievances" - such as "The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art..." Connecting the atrocities with Britain's misguided participation in George Bush's foolish and disastrous invasion of Iraq is to miss the big picture - these people want nothing more than to destroy our way of life and drag us back to barbarism. Their indiscriminate tactics kill many fellow Muslims but their attitude matches that of George Bush "If you are not with us you are against us" - and that includes ordinary moderate Muslims as much as anyone else. A moderate Muslim is to them an apostate and hence worthy of death. (Here is an interesting piece by Ronald Bailey writing for Reason which asks the question "If the West (more specifically, the United States) withdraws its armed forces from Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world will the Muslim terrorists leave us alone?")

July 15th 2005

Harry Potter and the White Queen - in Lewis Carrol's "Alice Through the Looking Glass" there is a conversation between Alice and the somewhat deranged White Queen, part of which goes thus -

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one CAN'T believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast...."

Increasingly it seems as if we are all living in a Looking Glass world where logic and rationality are ignored or distorted. As for believing six impossible things, why, religionists easily exceed that number without even getting out of bed. Evangelical Christians already 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, to quote Mark Twain. Which perhaps explains why Rev Richard Billinghurst, the Rector of Skellingthorpe, Lincolnshire, England wrote to a local school, The Holt Primary School, voicing his concern over plans for the school to have a Harry Potter day, linked to the publication of the latest in J K Rowling's series about the boy magician. Billinghurst accused the headteacher, Paul Martin, of seeking "..to lead our children into areas of evil". The fun day, which would have involved the kids dressing up as witches and wizards has now been cancelled, leaving the pupils sad and confused. The complaint originated apparently from a couple of parents who had become aware that Pope Benedict, when he was a mere Ratzinger, had said of Rowling's novels that they contained "...subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul". It would appear that Ratzinger, like 80, has not read any of the books, but was responding to Gabriele Kuby, a Bavarian-based Roman Catholic sociologist who had sent him a book of hers criticizing the Potter tales. Why he considered it wise or appropriate to offer an opinion on something he hadn't even read is not known, although he is in good company - there is no reason to believe the Ayotollah Khomeini had read The Satanic Verses before issuing Salman Rushdie's death warrant. It is a great shame that the headteacher felt that he had to cancel a day of "magical maths" and "spell invention" in order to placate some superstitious fools. He wrote in a letter to parents, "May I reassure parents that my staff and I only wished to raise the profile of reading and to have a bit of fun at the end of a very successful year." It is a pity he did not find out what the majority of parents felt about the Potter books before calling things off. As it is, the whiny irrational minority have had their way. 80 has, as stated above, not read any of the Potter books but took it upon himself to talk to friends young and old who have. It would appear from their answers that the ethos of Rowling's stories is one of honesty, kindness, loyalty to your friends and a strong feeling that evil is to be confronted and defeated. (Incidentally, even the youngest did not think the stories were anything other than fiction) It is interesting to compare this with Rev Richard Billinghurst's favorite book, one that is chockfull of stories of murder, cruelty, violence, and bigotry, presided over by a jealous and capricious God. He believes every single word. Which book would you prefer to have an influence on your kids? If you feel strongly enough about Rev Richard Billinghurst's mean-heartedness, why not let him know? Saint Lawrence’s Parish Church's web page has his email address. The page also states "We are evangelical, charismatic, and welcoming to all ages." All ages, that is, unless you are a Harry Potter fan. 80 was puzzled by this use of the word "charismatic" which conventionally means attractive, magnetic, charming or captivating. Not a word you would normally apply to a bunch of killjoys, but then Wikipedia supplied enlightenment "Charismatic is an umbrella term used to describe those Christians who believe that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit seen in the first century Christian Church, such as speaking in tongues, healing and miracles, are available to contemporary Christians and ought to be experienced and practiced today." In 80's view, a better description than charismatic would be gullible or simple-minded. The church web page has this invitation, "If you want to spend some time with some of God's people, come and give us a look." God's people? 80 would rather spend the time watching paint dry. (Also see this lovely little piece from The Chaser)

July 17th 2005

Conspicuous By Its Absence - where is Exhibit A? Seth Shostak seems to have upset that weird subset of humanity, the UFO community. However, Shostak is not your regular debunker but an astronomer deeply involved with SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). In recent statements and an appearance on the Larry King Show he quite rightly points how likely life is elsewhere in the Universe and also points out, again quite rightly, that there is no evidence whatsoever that aliens have visited the Earth. Evidence in this sense does not mean anecdotes, fuzzy photos, nonsensical conspiracy theories or Roswell silliness. 80 agrees that it is likely that microbial life is widespread in the cosmos but intelligent alien life and civilizations are much less so - not that this is to say they are impossible - there is a lot of space out there. But it is obvious from looking at the various UFO flaps and encounters since the late 1940's that no proof exists of alien visitations to our planet. This common sense view, shared by most if not all astronomers and exobiologists, has not met with approval from the UFO faithful as evidenced by this blog entry from Frank Warren. The first warning sign we are leaving the real world behind is Warren's use of the term ufology, a meaningless neologism that assumes there is actually something to study - apart from people's wishful thinking, paranoia and gullibility. Since Kenneth Arnold's first sighting of UFOs and the coining of the term flying saucer not one shred of unequivocal proof of alien visitations has surfaced - if even a tenth of the so-called sightings were true we should have had something to go by, an alien artifact, advanced scientific knowledge beyond our own or even an old Hitchhiker's Guide. Warren picks on Shostak's admission that there is nothing in the laws of physics that precludes interstellar travel but doesn't seem to grasp the magnitude of such an accomplishment - at least if you are thinking of journeys that don't take a human lifetime. Warren takes issue with Shostak's examples of the Pioneer and Voyager probes which are now entering interstellar space but at a speed that will take thousands of years to reach other star systems, saying they are 30 year-old technology. Sadly we have yet to develop anything better despite his recitation of various technologies such as "..ion propulsion, solar sails, beam particle and or laser drives, as well as magnetoplasma..." None of these are suitable for interstellar travel right now and may never be - ion drives and solar sails in particular. One of the most thorough studies so far of a starship is the British Interplanetary Society's Daedalus which would have taken 40 years or so to travel 6 light years - the energies involved in such a mission are enormous by present day standards and are likely to be easily detected by our current astronomical instruments. (Also see the Starflight Handbook) Warren criticizes Shostak for "...the old standard, “if ‘we can’t’ get there from here” then obviously “they can’t here (sic) from there” ideology." This is not so much an ideology as a wish not to contravene what we believe to be the laws of physics, which have served us quite well so far. Anyone can dream up warp drives and matter transmitters but this is science fantasy. Positing unknown powerful alien technologies is more a faith position than one based upon what we know of how the Universe works, and has no explanatory power - except of course for the true believer. Warren also takes issue with Shostak's "“lack of participation” of research into the UFO phenomenon...". Perhaps Shostak has not participated because, like 80, he is not convinced that a UFO "phenomenon" exists - except perhaps as a subject for cultural and sociological studies. Shostak is also accused by Warren of skirting "...the “preponderance of evidence” as is his routine, and (being) focused on one piece of the puzzle while ignoring the supportive data." The obvious weakness here for Warren's point is that, as stated earlier, there is no "preponderance of evidence" or "supportive data". Not one single incontestable shred - unless you adopt the same kind of standards used by Bush and Blair to prove Iraq had WMD. Repeated assertions, anecdotes and fuzzy pictures just don't make the cut - if you are claiming something as momentous as intelligent alien life visiting our planet using an unfathomably advanced starship technology you have to do a lot better than the poor collection of "evidence" produced so far. When Warren finally does refer to his "evidence" it is an anticlimax to say the least. None of his "....“physical trace cases, radar reports in support of eye-witness testimony, magnetic anomalies in association with UFO sightings, thermal effects, light effects, forensic evidence, and finally thousands of pages, if not hundreds of thousands pages of government documental evidence to name a few." withstand scrutiny and certainly approach nowhere near the standards required to support such extraordinary claims. Warren finds Shostak's "hypocrisy" as a SETI researcher and UFO "debunker" laughable. At least it is not as sad as thousands of "ufology" adherents laboring over their subject for nearly 60 years and failing to come up with any evidence that would stand up to scientific examination even for a minute. Maybe, deep down they know this, which explains why they can be so touchy. 80 leaves the last word to Shostak "The UFO advocates are not asking us to believe something either trivial or peripheral, for after all, there could hardly be any discovery more dramatic or important than visitors from other worlds. If we could prove that the aliens are here, I would be as awestruck as anyone, however, I await a compelling Exhibit A."

(Also see Saucers Go Triangular and the Klass Files)

A Two-Edged Weapon - the Muslim backers of the British government's incitement to religious hatred legislation have somewhat belatedly realized that it could well prove to be a two-edged weapon. Instead of protecting their religion from criticism, a view that has been shamelessly encouraged by the Blair government, it may have the opposite effect. Anyone who has read these pages recently will know that the holy books of the Abrahamic religions are full of incitements to hatred and violence on religious grounds. (The excellent Skeptic's Annotated Bible has handily compiled lists of examples from the Christian Bible and the Quran.) As mentioned on the Muslim Weekly web site "A delegation of Muslim leaders and senior scholars met Home Office Minister Paul Goggins this week to seek clarification on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill." It seems that they were worried the legislation would limit preachers' ability to quote from the Quran and the accompanying sayings, or Hadith and also inhibit their dawa, or missionary work. Amazingly Goggins is reported as saying "...there was nothing in the bill that would prevent scholars from delivering their sermons or from reciting from the Qu’ran and ahadith. The Minister reiterated that what the bill would do is criminalise incitement to religious hatred against individuals." This gives the go ahead for preachers to continue to spout hate-filled verses just as before. Furthermore Goggins added that "...it would be difficult to exempt scriptures because there is likelihood that extreme groups like the BNP (British National Party - a fascist outfit) may use verses of the Qu’ran to incite hatred against the Muslim community. Therefore, the very purpose of the Act would be defeated." If use of the offensive passages could lead to the prosecution of the BNP thugs surely this should equally apply to their usage by bloodthirsty, fundamentalist imams. What is the difference? Goggins' might like to familiarize himself with some of the verses that he says will not contravene the new legislation........

The Cow - Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 2:191

The Women - Believers fight for Allah; disbelievers fight for the devil. So fight the minions of the devil. 76

The Table Spread - Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom. 33

Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, and tooth for tooth. Non-muslims are wrong doers. 45

The Clans - Those who oppose Islam will be slain with a fierce slaughter. 60-61

As with verses in the Torah and the Old Testament, details of the translation may be questioned but the overall message is obvious and hardly open to any interpretation other than the incitement of hatred, intolerance and violence. (thanks to Simon for his input)

Do not suppose the statements of the prophets
to be true. Men lived comfortably till they came
and spoiled life. The "sacred books" are only such a
set of idle tales as any age could have and indeed did
actually produce."

-- Al-Ma'arri, poet, 973-1057

(from the The Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society)

July 22nd 2005

Grand Theft Porno - a while back (Shoot To Thrill?) 80 expressed disgust at the graphic violence in the video game Grand Theft Auto. "When 80 looked over at the screen to see what S's frantic thumbing of his game controller was achieving, it was not a pretty sight. He was controlling a figure armed with a baseball bat, which was used to bludgeon repeatedly another figure, lying prone on the sidewalk. Such was the realism that as the bat hit, the prone figure's limbs jerked spasmodically with the force of the blows." Vile enough to get this game banned you might think - and you'd be thinking wrong. Casual, graphically depicted violence and drive-by shootings were not enough to get this nasty bit of mind rot taken off the shelves - oh no, it takes sex to do that. This report from PCWorld notes that the makers have suspended sales and production of their sordid little masterpiece because - shock! horror! - a "software modification" posted online allows "...users to play sexually explicit mini-games..". So, beating someone to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat is OK but introduce some smut and all hell breaks loose. It makes one wonder what kind of standards are being applied by the regulatory bodies that only now sex is involved does the game get a revised rating that forbids sale to minors. In the real world all this means is that a kid only need to ask someone older to make the purchase for him (it is rarely, if ever, a her) and he will gain access not only to all the violence that he has come to know and love but the added bonus of some porn thrown in as well. Game maker Take-Two Interactive Software expects "...financial pain due to the revised rating." It seems it has "...recently revised down its sales projection for the full fiscal year, which ends October 31, to between $1.26 billion to $1.31 billion, from a previous forecast of $1.30 billion to $1.35 billion." in the wake over the sexual content rating revision. 80's heart fair bleeds for them in their plight. (also see Mark Morford's manic take on this in "There's Sex In My Violence!" )

Acclaim for Arkady - do read this entry in Slate's Fray discussion forum - Arkady writes "I have no problem with the media bashing L. Ron Hubbard and the absurdities of Scientology. What I have a problem with is this double standard in the media whereby L. Ron Hubbard is the only major religious founder it's OK to bash in polite company, and whereby we're all supposed to pretend Scientology is the only religion built on a pack of absurdities." and then hilariously goes on to redress the balance. Great stuff - although the same cannot be said for many of the replies to Arkady's post. (also see Tiny Tom and the Aliens)

Quote - from Tony Youens' Commentary in the wake of the London bombings "Surely it is time for the separation of church and state, the disbanding of religious schools (and otherwise using the education system as a means of early indoctrination) and the establishment of firmly secular government. I would never suggest the banning of any religion, I would rather humanity learned to outgrow such naivety but as this isn’t likely to happen anytime soon I’d like religion to be a question of personal choice and its political ambitions kept in check." For an eminently sane view of the world, leavened with more than a touch of humor, check out the rest of Tony's site.

Sites For Sore Eyes - here are a couple of fun sites for the discerning. The first is devoted to the miniscule and increasingly manic Tom Cruise, and is somewhat unsubtly but accurately called TomCruiseIsNuts.com. A companion site is devoted to the eminence grise of the Bush White House, old Turd Blossom himself, entitled, in an understandable bout of wishful thinking KarlRoveIsToast.com. Both sites are a public service brought to you by Topical Trash, bless 'em, the folks that also gave us Where In The World Is Jesus? the page for rapture nuts. "Tell us the time and place of Our Savior's Second Coming and win one million dollars for your church or synagogue!"

July 24th 2005

Randi's Soapbox -80 is currently experiencing a welcome surge in site traffic thanks to a short piece (Rant for the Day) which appeared as a guest contribution to James Randi's Weekly Commentary. The item was somewhat more rabid than many of 80's maunderings and was born of a moment of rage - not that this means that one word is regretted. When so many of the world's current ills can be laid at the door of religion the undue deference shown to supernatural beliefs is not only daft but downright dangerous. 80 was also tickled by Randi's reference to this site as "rather fearsome". Given the source of the remark 80 takes this as a compliment - there are more than a few charlatans, ghouls and liars who feel that Randi is himself fearsome, and with good cause. His mix of common sense, knowledge of deception, sheer showmanship and waspish humor is a pretty devastating combination. In a recent discussion on the Health Fraud list one of the writers objected to the showbiz/entertainment strand of Randi's many activities as detracting from his serious purpose - nothing could be further from the truth - his showmanship is what initially attracts many people and when they learn of his mission (and that of the James Randi Educational Foundation JREF) they stay to find out more. Those that denigrate the man are those whom he has effectively put on the spot, such as harridan and "psychic" Sylvia Browne who agreed to prove her claimed powers via the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge (see here) on the Larry King Show back in 2001. Ever since she has been wriggling around trying to duck out of her commitment. The excuses she has used are pathetic and unsustainable, from doubting the (easily verifiable) existence of the million bucks, to snide ad hominem attacks on Randi himself, to wilfully misunderstanding the terms of the challenge which are free to view and comprehensible to those of even moderate intelligence. Another individual to whom Randi is undoubtedly fearsome is a certain Australian lawyer. Australia is renowned as the continent with the most poisonous fauna, to which can perhaps be added Victor Zammit. As 80 remarked back in 2003 (Raging Bull) "...people tend to think of lawyers (when they think kindly of them) as having sharp brains and the ability to argue a case from the evidence available. The truth is of course lawyers are as fallible as the rest of us and if a belief is important enough they will ignore and attempt to belittle any evidence to the contrary. In the case of Victor Zammit he pursues the defence of his beliefs with a zeal that is almost evangelical. Rather than present evidence for those beliefs he resorts to a tactic that may work at times in a courtroom, with a jury to persuade with the skill of your rhetoric, but often has the opposite effect when seen in print. This is the ad hominem attack - in this case aimed mainly at James Randi but also at many others of a skeptical frame of mind who require evidence for extraordinary claims." Unable to to come up with any original answer to the threat Randi's activities pose to Zammit's beliefs and the lucrative activities of his pals, such as professional ghoul John Edward, Zammit has chosen to ape Randi's challenge with one of his own. His site is worth a visit not only only for the stunning gullibility Zammit displays - he is world class in this regard - but for the vituperative bile he reserves for those he calls close minded skeptics. As 80 noted previously a closer reading of Zammit's ravings reveal that he is a frightened man - scared to death of death itself - and is willing to cling to whatever nonsense he perceives as proving that he, Zammit, has an afterlife waiting. Back to the subject of Randi, 80 listened to an interview with the man himself courtesy of Skepticality (motto - Truth in Podcasting). Randi, in conversation with his talkative interlocutors tells of the Million Dollar Challenge and the JREF and adds some amusing anecdotes. (Check out Skepticality and their archive of downloadable MP3s featuring among others Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy and Tom Flynn of Free Inquiry - you will be glad you did.) The added attention to the 80 web site courtesy of the Randi soapbox is, as said above, welcome - it is now entirely up to 80 to try and retain some of these new readers. Thanks go to James Randi, not just for the loan of his soapbox, but for all his tireless efforts over the years to promote rationality and critical thinking - and for being fearsome..........

Do check out Remember Flim-Flam by Daniel Engber in Slate and these interviews with Randi from the Correx archives. Plus, 80 has just received the latest copy of Skeptical Inquirer (what do you mean, you don't subscribe) in which Randi tells of Fakers and Innocents - The One Million Dollar Challenge and Those Who Try for It)

In the Name of God - after the latest, apparently botched attacks in London, Polly Toynbee, writing in the Guardian, has little doubt of what lies at the root of the problem. "This is not about poverty, deprivation or cultural dislocation of second-generation immigrants. There is plenty of that and it is passive. Iraq is the immediate trigger, but this is about religious delusion. All religions are prone to it, given the right circumstances. How could those who preach the absolute revealed truth of every word of a primitive book not be prone to insanity?" Do read the rest of her piece on the divisive and dangerous influence of what is no more than organized superstition and her support of the National Secular Society (NSS) which seems almost alone in battling the spread of "faith" schools, an aberration increasingly promoted by an enthusiastic, and religious, Blair government. Also see The Impact of Religion on Children's Development by Azam Kamguian, one of the many interesting articles on the NSS web site. Plus, read the excellent Muriel Gray on Religion itself is the fount of most evil She pulls no punches, nor should she. The world's religions are "...Dark Ages nonsense that should, of course, be tolerated and its adherents protected and permitted to practice it peacefully, but falls a very long way from meriting respect. The age of enlightenment freed reasoning humans from the shackles of crudely hewn anthropomorphic gods, leaving these man-made deities to serve those who wished to keep them alive for the purposes of comforting self-delusion, social control – particularly the control of women – and the validation of power, violence and aggression."

July 26th 2005

Nothing is Certain - although some things are more certain than others. Absolute certainty is something humans crave but unless we subscribe to an irrational view of the world we will not find it. This irrationality may most often take the form of supernatural beliefs or a political ideology - and is in its most dangerous form when these two combine. In religion, for example, a monochromatic view is possible, but only by disregarding how the real world works. If you have a holy book that explains everything, at least to your satisfaction, then why listen to anyone else, why even consider their viewpoint? It is those that think they know all the answers, because their god told them so, with no room for doubt, who are the people who can step onto a crowded subway train with a backpack full of explosives. Where there is no room for doubt there is no room for compassion, there is no room for mercy, there is no room for intellectual growth. In the eyes of the fundamentalist fanatic there is no dividing line between personal beliefs and politics. The precepts of their faith are not for the individual but must be universally obeyed, their beliefs must be made into laws for all. That these beliefs and laws are hangovers from an earlier time, an earlier culture when the holy books were written and life was vastly different from today is of no concern. God and his lawgivers and prophets hold absolute authority.This can take the form of the kind of Christianity that has become so vocal and demanding in the US and which seeks to turn the country into a theocracy. It can also take the form of what some have called Islamofascism that is behind the bombings in Iraq. These jihadis are not freedom fighters, striving to drive out a foreign invader, though some will try to tell you that. No freedom fighter detonates a bomb in a crowd of children, no matter how hated are the occupiers of their land. The July 7th murderers in London were not advancing the cause of oppressed people anywhere - they were acting out, like so many robots, the certainties fed them by religious fanatics.

We can all be frightened by uncertainty but when the certainties of religious or political fanatics are imposed on those who do not share those views all manner of horrors become possible. In the wake of the 9/11 atrocities (see Baneful Biblical Basis) 80 quoted Jacob Bronowski, from the Ascent of Man. "It is said that science will dehumanise people and turn them into numbers. This is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods. Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgement in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible." We must learn not to fear uncertainty but to embrace it and grow in our knowledge. The Nobel Prize winning physicist and bongo player Richard Feynman put it this way "I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." Many folk accuse "science" of being unyielding and claiming absolute certainty - this is as true of those who embrace uproven medical therapies or new age nonsense as many religionists - but they could not be more wrong.

Science - or more accurately the scientific method - is a way of learning about the cosmos by successively more accurate approximations. The voyage of discovery that is the oldest of the sciences, astronomy, has moved from a flat earth to a geocentric system to our current understanding of a vast cosmos, billions of years old. If we had stayed with the holy books' account of the world as the literal truth we would still be wallowing in the primitive world view of our ancestors, a world view that is examined by Glenn Elert in The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology and also by Richard Carrier in Cosmology and the Koran. Yet many of us still sick to these same books for rules on how to conduct our lives. Many of these rules made little or no sense at the time they were formulated, and make even less sense now. This quotation from Isaac Asimov illustrates perfectly the man's impish sense of humor and may even sound uncaring, but unless we question many of the things our religions and ideologies hold to be certain we are doomed to repeat centuries of ignorance and violence. "Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck on, a skirt to hold. What have we to offer in exchange? Uncertainty! Insecurity!" Asimov was in this instance talking about pseudoscience but it also applies to religious and political dogma. So, nothing is certain - and a good thing too, otherwise we would never learn how to survive in a changing cosmos. As 80 says in the introduction to this page "We live in a fascinating, beautiful and, let's face it, dangerous enough universe without complicating matters with gobbledegook."

Carnival of the Godless #18 - now available over at St Nate's Blog

July 28th 2005

Don't Like it Here? - why not move on? Here is an interesting piece, The West's not anti-Islam — it just gives rights to women, by Mary Ann Sieghart writing in the Times of London on a poll conducted by YouGov (pdf) that was (part*) published in the Daily Telegraph. One of her first points is that a sizeable proportion of British Muslims, 32 per cent of them, thought that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end." The immediate thought is that if these people feel this way why are they living in Britain? Many of the things that are praiseworthy about Britain, including freedom of expression, religious choice and, most particularly, the equality of women would go straight out of the door if it became a Muslim state. It is the attitude to women that Sieghart looks at in more detail. She finds that the number of those that bear antipathy towards Britain, that is those that feel no loyalty to the country, is three times greater among men than women. She suggests "...that Muslim men resent the way in which their traditional feelings of superiority over women are challenged in the West. Here, they simply can’t get away with subjugating their womenfolk in the way that they can in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Somalia."

This seems to be yet another instance of culture being an inseparable part of religion, in this case the Abrahamic religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, the religions of the book. The book, the Torah, was composed by men in an Iron Age society where women were second class citizens and this cultural view is an integral part of the "scriptures" and their offspring. Therefore the argument whether unfair treatment of women is cultural or religious is a nonsense - it is purely cultural - as are the religions themselves. The religious texts enshrine the prejudices that obtained in the cultures where they were composed. (The idiotic notion that they were divinely inspired is not worthy of consideration) This would matter less if fundamentalist followers of these faiths did not insist their religious rules should be the rules for all societies. Such prejudice against women, while still extant to a degree, has much less of a chance in a secular state where religion is tolerated but kept out of politics and lawmaking. As for those men who think that women are somehow less than human and should be blamed in nearly every case for men's sexual transgressions and kept within the home, uneducated and subservient, they must be made aware that Britain (or anywhere else) is no place for such ignorant hateful misogynic prejudice. This view is put forcefully in Sieghart's piece by a woman who appreciates what an enlightened society has to offer, Bushra Nasir, the head teacher of Plashet School for girls in East London. Commenting on the YouGov poll she said, "If 32 per cent of British Muslims really do think that Western society is immoral and should be brought to an end, then I ask myself: if they hate it so much, why live here?" This is a perfectly valid question - and one which many people in Britain, of all faiths and none, will be asking. (*for more comment on the poll see this from UK Polling Report and, on religion in society, In the Name of God)

August 3rd 2005

This Morning's Cloob - for a funny, scathing, detailed, accurate analysis of the totally crap performance of "one of the most sought-after psychics in the UK" read Tony Youens' Commentary. ITV, a commercial UK channel has been "testing" a psychic on a talk show called This Morning. 80 can only admire Tony's patience to sit through this unmitigated drivel (although it is a fair bet his blood pressure reached dangerous levels). Even more admirable is his dissection of the whole pathetic business, although this comes relatively easily to him as a skilled cold-reader himself. Not that his knowledge of psychic con tricks needed too much employment here as the psychic involved, Mia Dolan, seems pretty inept, even given the help of the biased and gullible hosts of the show. To use Tony's own term, Mia Dolan's performance and claimed psychic powers are just the usual cloob. (also see his excellent article on Psychic Sophistry)

Back Door Man - George Bush, unable to push his nomination for UN ambassador through the usual channels, has used the recess appointment dodge to bypass the Senate and appoint the deeply unpleasant John Bolton, otherwise known as Scary Mustache Guy. Bolton has a reputation for an abrasive manner, the bullying of subordinates and antipathy for the UN itself which is all well documented. Just Dubya's kind of guy, even though he looks somewhat like a Village People wannabe. Perhaps it was Bolton's role in the 2000 presidential election debacle in Florida that won him the UN position - payback for a job well done. The fact that his attitude to the UN is well known and also that his back door appointment can only run for 17 months will do little to enhance his performance at that body. Many of the reforms that he was supposed to implement when his nomination was made 5 months ago have already been effected (reg rqd) - perhaps he can use the spare time to groom his upper lip.

Unscrupulous Fools - the perfectly understandable reaction of condemnation and disgust by most Muslims to suicide bombings, most of which, particularly in Iraq, kill their fellow religionists has been somewhat undermined recently. The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) on July 26th called on the United Nations to condemn killing in the name of religion. According to the IHEU this was blocked (scroll down for full text) by Islamic members of the Sub-Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. These members chose to interpret a prepared text which IHEU representative David Littman attempted to read on behalf of the Association for World Education, the Association of World Citizens, and IHEU as an attack on Islam. Attempted, for he was unable to continue because of repeated interruptions. (This immediately brings to mind the old saying "if the cap fits wear it". These Islamic states' representatives obviously decided this was their headgear.) The document, produced in response to the spate of recent suicide bombings around the world, called upon the UN Human Rights Commission "to condemn calls to kill, to terrorise or to use violence in the name of God or any religion". That the Muslim representatives objected to this puts them in a very bad light indeed and is inexcusable. It is time that these clowns ackowledged that their religion, or more accurately an extreme fundamentalist version, is being used as justification for indiscriminate mass murder. Did these creeps even think once about the crowd of Iraqi schoolkids who were blown apart by a jihadist? Can they not condemn all such actions by religious fanatics? It is not enough to condemn individual acts of terror - condemnation of the whole mindset that says religiously inspired murder is acceptable is what is needed. They are in 80's view beneath contempt for ducking the chance to abominate such barbarism. What signal do they think this sends to the rest of the world?

Quote - "If only Michael Jackson's trial had been held in Darfur. Last month, CNN, Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CBS collectively ran 55 times as many stories about Michael Jackson as they ran about genocide in Darfur." Nicholas D Kristoff, New York Times (reg rqd)

So What? - read this fatuous drivel from Tony Blair in a BBC report. "Abolishing faith schools is not the way to create harmony between different communities in the wake of the London attacks, Tony Blair has said. The prime minister said axing Muslim schools would mean ending Catholic, Jewish and Protestant schools too. (So what?) "Realpolitik" would prevent such a move, said Mr Blair." What 80 sees here is not so much realpolitik as Blair's own prejudices and particularly his leanings towards Roman Catholicism. His own children attended Catholic schools. (see Viruses of the Mind by Richard Dawkins on the dangers of a religious education)

August 5th 2005

Intelligent Design - made a great leap the other day - no, not in the way of scientific evidence, that would be impossible, as ID is not science. What happened was that George W Bush, that intellectual giant, endorsed the idea of teaching this ill-disguised creationist claptrap in science class. So the USA takes another shambling step towards an anti-science dark age. In a world that desperately needs to use science and its application in technology more and more in order to survive the challenges ahead the leader of the currently most powerful nation on the planet backs introducing religion into the science curriculum. Bush even trotted out the mantra pushed by the ID crowd that he "... felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." This was "...so people can understand what the debate is about." There are not two sides - there is a scientific theory backed by the overwhelming weight of evidence and there is a silly idea that gaps in our current knowledge need a supernatural explanation. There is no connection between the two - one is science and the other is wishful thinking. There are no grounds for a "debate".

There was a perceptive remark on Slashdot about this effort to pollute school science with ID "Actually, I think we've hit on the right class to teach Intelligent Design. A marketing class. Look kids, how do you find a way to rebrand an old idea to provide it with added legitimacy in the modern age?" This recognizes that ID is not science but just old style creationism tricked out in an ill-fitting white coat. The IDers are of course careful not to say who they think the Designer is, but it is obvious that it is supposed to be the Judaeo-Christian god. This coyness does leave them rather open to questions as to whether the Designer could in fact be an advanced, super-intelligent extraterrestrial. This is certainly more likely than some supernatural bogeyman. To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke's Third Law any sufficiently advanced lifeform is indistinguishable from a god. You then still have the problem of who or what created the super E-T - but that problem applies equally to a deity. ID in fact can explain nothing, for it is no more than saying "God did it" which, as a way of advancing our knowledge of the cosmos, is plain bloody useless. Bush's action is of a piece with the rampant anti-intellectualism in the US under his administration - a place where conviction and beliefs trump learning and facts (see How Bush Thinks - LA Times reg rqd). This has been demonstrated by the blatant manipulation and suppression of scientific reports and findings that don't sit comfortably with the administration's aims and beliefs.

This slow stifling of science, if not vigorously opposed, will surely lead to the demise of the US as a world player - the neocons grandly refer to the New American Century - yet by their own actions they are already making this most unlikely. As this op-ed in the Boston Globe puts it "School boards are debating whether to mandate alternative creation sciences in at least 15 states. American high schoolers do badly enough on international science tests without the president casting doubt on the core theory of biology." Already the latest developments in stem cell research emanate from South Korea and the UK thanks to Bush's ignorant opposition to the research. The president actually has a scientist on the team, John H. Marburger, who is on record as saying "..intelligent design is not a scientific concept." As has been noted by many commentators why didn't the spineless press pack at Bush's announcement ask Bush why he is contradicting his own adviser? In a report from the New York Times (reg rqd) there is an explanation of just exactly who Bush listens to rather than Marburger. It seems "At the White House, intelligent design was the subject of a weekly Bible study class several years ago (by) Charles W. Colson. Mr. Colson has also written a book, "The Good Life," in which a chapter on intelligent design features Michael Gerson, an evangelical Christian who is an assistant to the president for policy and strategic planning." There is also a lovely correction in the NYT piece that shows a revealing slip on the writer's behalf - and one on which the ID pushing Discovery Institute was no doubt quick to pounce "An article yesterday about comments by President Bush on the teaching of evolution misstated a word in a quotation from Stephen Meyer of the Discover (sic) Institute in Seattle, who praised Mr. Bush's comments on the theory of intelligent design, which disputes the idea of natural selection in explaining the complexity of life. Mr. Meyer said, "We interpret this as the president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and free speech about the issue of biological origins" - not "biblical origins." "

On a related note a Pastor Russell Johnson is in the news trashing - you guessed it, evolution. This know nothing clod has trotted out the "old Hitler was an evolutionist" line with the implication that this made him an atheist and therefore without morals. This drivel seems to go down well with Johnson's audiences in Ohio according to USA Today - sadly the article does nothing to refute this old lie. Hitler was in fact a Christian and magical thinker - his absurd ideas were utterly unscientific as even superficial research demonstrates. His regime had a cozy relationship with the Christian church as detailed in this fascinating page from the National Secular Society. To quote from the introduction "The Nazis are only explicable in terms of a religious mysticism which incorporated the nationalism and racism that was current in Central Europe at the time." Fascism and Christianity have often been bedfellows - a prime example being the relationship between the regime of Franco in Spain and the Catholic church. (Although it must be said many brave individual Christians have died opposing such regimes) Johnson is an example of the religious resurgence in the US that wishes to turn the country into a theocracy, as is another religionist quoted in USA Today, Pastor Rod Parsley, who proudly declares "I like to say I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm a Christ-o-crat." Several more appropriate descriptions of Parsley spring to mind, sadly none of them printable. 80 has come across Parsley before and enjoyed a devastating review of his magnum opus Silent No More: Bringing Clarity to America... While Freedom Still Rings. (see Shredded Parsley)

August 7th 2005

Cum Grano Salis - the ever-fascinating and informative Explorator newsletter has long had a section called Cum Grano Salis (or Don't Eat That Elmer) for the more questionable ancient history/archaeology items that the internet throws up - and throws up is often just the right term. In the latest Explorator there are three items that could qualify, but only one is where it belongs, that being a piece on that tireless (and tiresome) seeker of Atlantis, Robert Sarmast. Let us quickly state that in 80's view anyone who looks for a real, physical Atlantis using Plato for clues is wasting their time. That said there are still an awful lot of seekers out there and the best you can say for Sarmast is that at least he is persistent - pointlessly so - but persistent nonetheless. Looking for the remains of a city state that never existed outside of Plato's imagination cannot be anything but a misuse of time and resources but as both of these are Sarmast's it does little harm. 80 looked at Sarmast briefly in 2003 (Atlantis Found) and 2004 (What's In a Name?) Now he has announced plans to return to the seabed between Cyprus and Syria where he claims to have discerned manmade structures. Further investigation may indeed establish the existence of these structures, but Atlantis they ain't. (Also see At Last Atlantis, on rival theorists who believe the lost city was in the South China Sea (!) and hence naturally take a dim view of Sarmast's silly Mediterranean fantasies.) Explorator's other two Cum Grano Salis candidates have somehow escaped into the main body of the newsletter - this first one is so bizarre that a spoof is suspected. Judy Kay King has "spent the last four years decoding ancient Egyptian symbols and interpreting the results through biosemiotics, a biological science of signs and messages in living systems." and is now bringing out a book. (There is always a book) It is called The Isis Thesis. Now try saying that three times quickly. And what has she discovered? That mythological stories are metaphors for the molecular biology of bacteria and viruses. (Bet you didn't see that one coming) As she puts it "I got a hunch that what the pharaohs were talking about could be observed at the level of proteins and molecules. Their gods and goddesses are actually proteins." After reading that you may well be surprised to learn that she has a master's degree in English, although obviously her interests are far wider, for she says her idea is applicable to other scientific theories and both mythological and religious literature. According to this report she believes her unlikely findings match "...up with our best modern science, such as black hole theory, string theory and quantum loop theory." Quite. The other escapee item is an announcement of a meeting to discuss something even more tedious than Atlantis - the Turin Shroud. The Dallas International Shroud of Turin Conference is described as "..a scientific gathering for presenting research papers on what is thought to be the 2,000-year old burial cloth of the historic Jesus." The fact that the overwhelming weight of evidence points to the thing being a medieval fraud does not seem to trouble the attendees or indeed the writer of the article, who blithely refers to the piece of cloth as " Christendom’s most important historical artifact..." He even refers to the now discredited results of the investigations of late Raymond N. Rogers (see Clods Shroud Science). Like Atlantis, 80 fears that the Shroud has become a self-perpetuating industry and talking shop for those with nothing better or more useful to occupy their time.

August 9th 2005

Theology Not Science - for an excellent summary of the fuss in the US over the teaching of evolution do take a look at The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name by Jerry Coyne, writing in The New Republic (registration is required but worth it for this article alone). Coyne, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, examines the claims of Intelligent Design (ID) proponents and reveals them to be merely old-style creationism dressed up in a nice white coat and cunningly divested of religious references, all the better to sneak into the science classroom. He looks at points raised by IDers and finds them untenable in the light of modern scientific research. One example is the lack of so-called "missing links" in the fossil record, but, as Coyne puts it, "When such fossils are found, as they often are, creationists must then punt and change their emphasis to other missing links, continually retreating before the advance of science." (God of the Gaps anyone?) Coyne also shows how even the most outwardly scientific of the ID crowd are motivated by a desire to promote a theological view of the world - here he quotes mathematician William Dembski, "The world is a mirror representing the divine life.... Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." This kind of waffle clearly has no place in a science classroom. Coyne concisely summarizes the strategy employed "It is clear, then, that intelligent design did not arise because of some long-standing problems with evolutionary theory, or because new facts have called neoDarwinism into question. ID is here for only one reason--to act as a Trojan horse poised before the public schools: a seemingly secular vessel ready to inject its religious message into the science curriculum." If you have a friend, relative or acquaintance who is generally interested in the evolution/ID furor and would like to know more you could do a lot worse than get them to read Coyne's article - highly recommended.

"People sometimes try to score debating points by saying, "Evolution is only a theory." That is correct, but it's important to understand what that means. It is also only a theory that the world goes round the Sun -- it's just a theory for which there is an immense amount of evidence.There are many scientific theories that are in doubt. Even within evolution, there is some room for controversy. But that we are cousins of apes and jackals and starfish, let's say, that is a fact in the ordinary sense of the word." Richard Dawkins

Great Ball of Fire - a so-called amateur psychic's misfortune provided the Times with a nice headline "Psychic's crystal ball burns down his flat in unforeseen blaze". According to firefighters sunlight was focused by the ball onto a pile of washing, igniting it. Herve Vandrot, the ball's owner, does not agree attributing the fire to an electrical fault. Even if this was the case it doesn't let him off the hook - he still didn't see it coming.

And It's Free - many folk don't yet realize that you don't have to be in the UK to enjoy the BBC's radio output. The BBC Radio web page is the gateway to eleven stations where you can listen live or browse through the many archived items available. (Broadband is preferable and, for historical reasons, Realplayer is necessary. If, like 80, you find Realplayer intrusive and downright irritating, the answer is to install the cheekily named Realplayer Alternative) As an example of the fine material available, try this exercise - click over to Radio 4, then in the left sidebar click Science. This takes you to a load of archived material, some long term, some around only for a week until the next edition of a show is broadcast. One particular gem here is The Material World with Quentin Cooper, in which he and "..his live studio guests discuss the latest scientific investigations and research findings." This week's offerings are typically eclectic, firstly a fascinating discussion of ancient Greek "science fiction" and its links to the modern version, followed by an examination of left-handedness (are left-handers more creative?) to mark National Left-handers Day on August 13th. This item has the added bonus of input by Lewis Wolpert on other "...aspects of asymmetry in our brains, bodies and molecules." To quote Cooper, "..each week on The Material World we try to reflect the excitement, ideas, uncertainties, collisions and collaborations as science continues its never-ending voyage into the unknown". Highly recommended and a very good reason to check out the BBC's web output. And it's free...

Which Side Are You On? - read this powerful piece from the highly recommended Butterflies and Wheels. Follow it up with Darwin and Design: The Flawed Origins of a Critique which skewers some common misconceptions about scientists, atheism and morality, in this instance trotted out by Frederick Turner. After those two samples you will then want to sign up for the updates delivered to your inbox every Monday. Subtitled "Fighting Fashionable Nonsense" B and W is a sane commentary on an insane world.

" Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination - stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one - million - year - old light. A vast pattern - of which I am a part... What is the pattern, or the meaning, or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent? "
The Feynman Lectures on Physics

Right on the Mark - It cannot have escaped regular readers' notice that 80 will, when goaded beyond endurance, indulge in what can only be called a rant. Take a moment now to read the latest column from Mark Morford at SFGate.com to see a master at work. "I cannot, for example, tolerate the dark and violent road down which this nation seems intent on careening like an Escalade on meth. I cannot tolerate brutal never-ending unnecessary wars and I cannot allow gay rights to be bashed and I truly loathe watching women's rights be slammed back to 1952. Or 1852.
I really have little patience for the gutting of our school system and the decimation of science and mysticism and the human mind for the sake of a handful of militant Christian zealots who truly believe the Second Coming will be arriving really soon but hopefully not before the next episode of HBO's "Cathouse: The Series," which they watch in secret with the lights off while clutching a Bible in one hand and a big tub of Country Crock margarine in the other." Great stuff - but you have to wonder, does he ever stop for breath? Is his keyboard fitted with a sprinkler system for when the prose gets too heated? Long may he rant.

August 13th 2005

Ab Absurdo - Although considered underhand and improper as a formal debating tactic 80 has always found ridicule to be a powerful tool in confronting irrational ideas, especially in the realms of religion and pseudoscience, coincidentally two fields which overlap considerably, as evidenced by the Intelligent Design/creationist nonsense. The employment of ridicule is signalled by this site's logo, visible just below 80's attractive portrait, in the top left corner of this page. Ab Absurdo, according to the fascinating book Nil Desperandum, literally means "from the absurd" and is defined thus, "One who argues ab absurdo seeks to establish the validity of his position by pointing out the absurdity of his opponent's position." But as author Eugene Ehrlich cautions, "While an argument ab absurdo may have the effect of demolishing one's opponent's position in debate, it usually does not of itself prove the the validity of one's own position." In other words it is only useful as one of several methods of argument, but in some circumstances nothing else works quite as well. The British have long had a tradition of ridiculing figures of fear - including Hitler. 80 was reminded of this by a piece in the Daily Telegraph by Sam Leith with the eye-catching title The sanest reponse to teenage numpties who blow themselves up is simply to laugh at them. He is of course referring to the London Tube bombers and in the course of his article their inspiration, the so-called "radical" Islamic clerics. (About that word radical, which is getting a lot of airing on the news, invariably attached to the word cleric. It seems in this context to mean fundamentalist. If so, why not say fundamentalist? Perhaps it is merely an instance of syllabic parsimony. If so, daft has only one syllable - and none of the meaning is lost.)

Amid all the commentary in the press about fundamentalist Islam and terrorism, and the despicable attempts to justify terrorist atrocities, Leith comes as a breath of fresh air. Some may find his attitude frivolous but they would be wrong, he is actually making a serious point. When he says "What strikes me more and more about recent events is that we neglect the comical side of them at our peril. What these characters do is horrific. But there is something genuinely amusing about the motivations from which they do it. 72 virgins? Come off it. Restoring the Caliphate? Oh my giddy aunt. You lot really are dipsticks, aren't you?" he is bang on target by highlighting the sheer silliness of these superstitions and aspirations. Some people may warn that such mockery can only serve to enrage these nutters - but then surely they can't get any angrier than they are already, can they? And if the mockery derails just one would-be mass murderer, that would surely be a good thing. As Leith says, "Nobody wants to blow themselves up on a train and look down from the afterlife to see that, rather than being crowned with the symbols of martyrdom and surrounded by the faces of the infidel filled with holy terror, your grave is surmounted by a dunce's cap."

In a similar vein is an earlier Telegraph opinion piece by Boris Johnson "Militant Islam has been shielded from proper discussion by cowardice, political correctness and a racist assumption that we should privilege the beliefs of a minority, even when they appear to be mediaeval. It is time the discussion was opened up not just to reason, but to reason's greatest ally, humour. Instead of banning the discussion of the 72 virgins of paradise, the alleged meed of the suicide bomber, would it not be much more efficient to make fun of this ludicrous claim?" Johnson, not normally viewed as an ally, endeared himself to 80 with this prediction, "Islam will only be truly acculturated to our way of life when you could expect a Bradford audience to roll in the aisles at Monty Python's Life of Mohammed." Sadly this is not something we can expect any time soon.

Art as Ridicule - here is a page from BBC news showing the power of the artist to mock the very structures of strife - in this case the euphemistically-named "security fence" erected by Israel. The fence, a huge barrier of concrete and razor-wire, has been fetchingly decorated by "guerilla" artist Banksy. Painted on the Palestinian side, the images purport to show what lies beyond - the surreal effect is quite wonderful. Banksy, who wisely does not allow himself to be photographed, condemns the wall but described it as "the ultimate activity holiday destination for graffiti writers". 80's only complaint is that the pictures on the BBC page are not big enough, happily these are bigger. (Sadly this link is no longer relevant) Nice one, Banksy. (see more of his stuff here)

August 18th 2005

Pope's Moral Example - The usual inordinate amount of coverage is being given to Pope Ratzinger's trip to Germany to participate in World Youth Day (which oddly lasts for a week) where the head of the Roman Catholic church will reach out to young people. Less attention is given to another news story from Texas involving Ratzinger and young folk - one he will be less happy to read. In Germany large numbers of the young faithful, no doubt boosted by the casually curious, have flocked to Cologne. It is estimated that an open-air mass given by Ratzinger on Sunday will attract up to a million people. Coverage has also been given to his visit to a Cologne synagogue, which was destroyed by the Nazis and rebuilt 20 years later. No coverage is being given to the questions that still remain about the Pope's military service and desertion towards the end of World War II. Many may consider these to be of little import 60 years later but when someone claims the moral high ground and dictates to others how they should live, nothing can be beyond scrutiny. This also goes for the other Pope story in the press - a lawsuit in Texas accuses Ratzinger of conspiring to conceal the molestation of three boys by a seminarian there, dating to the mid 90's, when Ratzinger was merely the pontiff's mastiff rather than the top dog himself. In those days he had a reputation as Pope Wojtyla's enforcer, or panzerkardinal as he was less-than-affectionately known. An attorney representing three boys, who have brought a civil suit accusing seminarian Juan Carlos Patino-Arango of molesting them, claims that the then Cardinal Ratzinger conspired to hide Patino-Arango's crimes and help him escape prosecution. 80 commented on this back in May - see Holy Omerta. An article in the Guardian says that Ratzinger was served with notice that he was named in the lawsuit in January of this year. The reaction to this has now been made known - Ratzinger's lawyers, acting for him under his nom du pape, Benedict XVI, have asked President Bush to declare the pontiff immune from liability because he is a head of state. In 80's, no doubt simplistic, view this is patently not the action of an innocent man wrongly accused of conspiracy to conceal a crime, but a guilty one seeking to avoid prosecution with a legal dodge. One wonders how many of the young folk thronging the streets of Cologne are destined to be groped by priests, something all the more likely while the Church is still in denial about the extent of the problem. What example is set for the minions in the Catholic hierarchy when the man at the very top, their moral leader, uses legal chicanery to avoid answering his accusers?

Just a Theory - If evolution is "just a theory" then so is gravity - hence the new alternative explanation for the phenomenon - Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University. See The Onion for more. It also appears that those clever creation science guys have found out how Noah managed to collect his arkload of fauna - the answer is obvious - see Landover Baptist Church. Why, they even have a book for the kids, The Talking Snake Theory: Creation Science & History For Christian Children. But for those serious about religious belief - and who isn't - in 80's view the Flying Spaghetti Monster has more going for it than your regular, everday deities. Although if you feel strongly about the wearing of hedgehog underpants the New Anchorites could be your spiritual home. "New Anchorism only concerns itself with today and the future, events either real or imagined from hundreds of years ago cannot possibly be used to guide modern lives."

Both Sides Now - A sure sign that a news organization is presenting reasonably accurate coverage is if it is condemned by both sides in any given dispute upon which it reports. Al Jazeera has achieved this on occasion but the world champion is surely the BBC. In this latest instance its flagship documentary program, Panorama, has drawn the ire of the so-called Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). (Whether Britain's Muslims are homogenous enough to be represented by one organization is a moot point). It seems that the BBC team have been looking a little too closely into some of the connections of the MCB, described in this Observer piece as "..a loose structure of more than 400 affiliates." and found that some components of the council have links to extremist Islamic ideology. (The Panorama site trails the program as containing "strong, frank interviews with British Muslims on attitudes to integration, sectarianism, supremacy and suicide bombings in Britain and abroad.") The MCB, it seems, instead of addressing such allegations prefers to accuse the BBC of being pro-Israeli - a charge that can safely be described as idiotic, certainly by the authors of this site on The BBC’s war against Israel and also by the Israeli government's head of press, who accused the Beeb of 'demonising and vilifying' his country. All the MCB has achieved by its accusation is to focus attention on its own shortcomings, including its position on suicide bombings. The Observer quotes Abdul-Rehman Malik, of the Muslim magazine Q-News "You cannot be equivocal about innocent people. An innocent person in Tel Aviv is the same as an innocent person in Baghdad or London." 80 eagerly awaits the Panorama program (Sunday 21 August 2005 22:15 BST, BBC One) to see exactly what has got up the MCB's nose to the extent that it is driven to make such ridiculous accusations. For more about the MCB's affiliations and agenda take a look at MCB Watch, a blog "monitoring and commenting on the output of the Muslim Council of Britain."

August 20th 2005

Riding the Royal Hobbyhorse - Charles Windsor has once again been making use of his unelected, privileged position to pronounce upon matters far beyond his area of competence - an area that, in 80's view, has yet to be detected let alone defined. Not satisfied with recently promoting a magical system of agriculture, he is back banging the drum for more so-called Complementary and Alternative Medicine (sCAM) to be made available via the UK's cash-strapped National Health Service. A few weeks back the clown prince was mentioned in the press for adopting "...some of the principles of biodynamics, a form of farming in which livestock are treated with homeopathic remedies rather than antibiotics, and astronomical calendars and signs of the zodiac play a role in determining when to sow and harvest crops." The prince's farm manager told the Times "Biodynamics has a lot going for it, we are beginning to use some of the principles to decide when we plant some vegetables. If the moon is waxing we plant some seed species and if the moon is waning, others. There is no doubt that if we plant certain seeds at the right phase of the moon they grow quicker and produce more vigorous plants." No doubt. Note that as is always the case with this kind of magical nonsense no numbers or studies are provided to back up the assertion. A look at this web page, from the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, confirms that it is little more than the old concept of vitalism dressed up a bit for the 21st century. Hokum in a new suit is still hokum, but it does fit in nicely with Windsor's obsession with such nonsense. The daft ideas he

Number 80 Home Page 80's Recommended Reading

Links from Number 80

Backwards Glances Index 2005 part 4

Task of Blood? - see Carnivorous Hypocrites.

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

"Nothing in Islam can ever justify the evil actions of the bombers." says Sir Iqbal Sacranie, of the Muslim Council of Britain. He is wrong, it is a sad and deplorable fact that there is far too much that can be used this way. See here.

(Also see Saucers Go Triangular and the Klass Files)

Carnival of the Godless #18 - now available over at St Nate's Blog

Quote - "If only Michael Jackson's trial had been held in Darfur. Last month, CNN, Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CBS collectively ran 55 times as many stories about Michael Jackson as they ran about genocide in Darfur." Nicholas D Kristoff, New York Times (reg rqd)