The View from Number 80

 

Backwards Glances Index 2006 part 2

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.)

March 16th 2006  Idiots of the Lost Ark

March 22nd 2006  Uniformly Stroppy

March 25th 2006  Quack Show

March 27th 2006  Ban the Bunny

March 29th 2006  War On Truth

March30th 2006  Prayed In Vain

April 5th 2006  Bugged Out

April 9th 2006  Telltale Elephant

April 11th 2006  Royal Society Says Enough

April 14th 2006  The Bible's All Wrong, Again

April 20th 2006  Which Way To Mecca?

April 21st 2006  Bish Bash

April 22nd 2006  Irony in Bronze

May 3rd 2006  Nazis and Fundies

May 4th 2006  Three Piece Suite

May 10th 2006  Trouble In Woo-Woo Land

May 15th 2006  Self Harm?

May 19th 2006  Da Vinci Cod

May 23rd 2006  Money's Too Tight for Nonsense

May 28th 2006  OINK! (again)

June 5th 2006  What, Still Here?

June 8th 2006  Heretical Gospels

June 9th 2006  No Brainer

June 11th 2006  Profiles in Terror

March 16th 2006

Quack Show - when something seems to be too good to be true it probably is. This turns out to be the case with a BBC 2 TV series on sCAM (so-called Complementary Alternative Medicine) called, somewhat unimaginatively, Alternative Medicine. It would seem the imaginative side of the project was reserved for giving a false impression of efficacy for various non-evidence based therapies and treatments. It is reported by scientists who took part in the highly popular shows that "...elements of the programmes were misleading, the production team was uninformed, and scientists were used as "marionettes"." To 80, long an observer of the alternative medicine scene, this seems no more than par for the course. It is only rarely that a show such as BBC2's Horizon can do a thorough job on the unsupported claims of sCAM, as in the excellent episode that dealt with homeopathy. Edzard Ernst, recently in the news for dishing the dirt on chiropractic, took part in the Alternative Medicine shows and now wishes his name was not associated with them. He says "I would have expected that journalists doing a medical programme would be able to deal with medical evidence. But they were at a complete loss to understand the difference between an anecdote and real evidence. You need somebody on the team who is a scientist, particularly in the area that the programme is about. Also, there is no point having expert advisers if nobody is going to take on board what they say." (This again is very much the usual course for shows investigating fringe claims, a recent high profile example being Britain's Psychic Challenge which is thoroughly and humorously skewered by Tony Youens in an excellent piece.) It would appear despite the criticism the Beeb is going to make another series of Alternative Medicine (after all 3.8 million viewers can't be wrong, can they?). A spokeman unwittingly revealed his own, if not the corporation's ignorance with this comment "We take these allegations very seriously and we strongly refute them." 80 searched the rest of the article thoroughly for a "strong" refutation of Ernst's charges but came up with nothing. Mere naysaying, of which there is plenty, is not refutation, something this clod fails to grasp.

Although some have defended the shows a good illustration of the dangers of less than rigorous scientific standards when examining health claims, alternative or otherwise comes from Professor David Colquhoun, a pharmacologist at University College London. He has already detected a unwanted effect on public perception of sCAM. Referring to the show's treatment of the plant sutherlandia and its role in treating Aids Colquhoun had this to say "Sutherlandia is a totally unverified treatment for Aids. The programme gave a positive impression of what sutherlandia can do, even though no clinical trials have been done yet. The comments made in the programme about Aids were irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Sadly, but predictably, the programme on herbalism has already been exploited by vendors of unproven treatments. While it is true that the programme did not actually assert that this herb cured Aids, it certainly left the impression that it was good stuff." He notes at least one firm peddling Sutherlandia tablets refers to the show as somehow validating their product - see this press release. Muddying the waters over the efficacy of sCAM is the last thing the BBC should be doing and is irresponsible in the extreme. Unproven herbs, for example, may have their own unpleasant or dangerous side effects, people may take them instead of consulting a qualified health professional, they may interact with prescription medicines in unpredictable ways and finally they may not work at all. 80 is all in favor of investigating the pharmacological properties of herbs but this should be done employing all possible scientific rigor - we are talking about people's lives here.

An expert involved with the show on acupuncture, Professor George Lewith of Westminster University, criticized the way an experiment was conducted saying "The interpretation of the science in this particular programme was not good and was inappropriately sensationalised by the production team. I think all of us on the experiment felt like that." He went on to say "The experiment was not groundbreaking, its results were sensationalised and there was insufficient time to analyse the data properly and so draw any sound conclusions. It was oversold and over-interpreted. We were encouraged to over-interpret, and proper scientific qualifications that might suggest alternative interpretations of the data appear to have been edited out of the programme. Because the BBC had funded the experiment, they wanted their money's worth - that's not a good basis for science." None of this stopped the presenter of Alternative Medicine, Professor Kathy Sykes, who should know better, gushing on "Acupuncture was having a real effect on the brain and it was doing something completely unexpected. It was a result that surprised us all ... The bit of the brain that helps us decide whether something is painful, we think perhaps is being affected by acupuncture and so maybe that helps to explain why acupuncture can help with chronic pain." This translated into credulous news reports such as this one from, you guessed it, the BBC. The only part of this news item that rang true for 80 was the headline "Acupuncture 'deactivates brain'" - it certainly seems to have worked on those who should have been enforcing proper standards of inquiry in these shows. (see An Announcement for more on the media's sensationalizing of science reports.)

Dauber of Dross - 80 has loathed the insufferably twee (and astoundingly popular) pictures of Thomas Kinkade since first witnessing them years ago in a gallery in Yountville, Napa, Ca. In lurid colors, they nearly always seem to feature gingerbread cottages nestling coyly in woodland glades, the whole suffused with the kind of light that brings to mind the most tawdry of Catholic images of saints - a sickening inner glow no doubt intended to convey "spirituality" of some kind but, in 80's view, more reminiscent of luminescent putrescence. It was thus that 80 experienced a certain malicious glee in reading this Guardian piece on Kinkade which reveals a side to the man unhinted at in the gushing brochures that plug his work. The effect, certainly upon 80, of reading passages such as this "In the often hurried, unsympathetic and complex world we live in, the images Thomas Kinkade paints offer a place of refuge. A place where the transient things of life give way to the things that matter most ... faith and family, a loving home and the people who know and love us." is akin to sticking one's fingers down one's throat. Kinkade has not been shy in promoting and marketing his pictures, which are said to hang in "one in 20 US homes.". Special Kinkade-branded galleries peddling his "crimes against aesthetics" are all over, but now a very strange version of Kinkade the man is emerging, not the devout Christian who styles himself "Painter of Life" but  someone who stands "...accused of sexual harassment, fraudulent business practices and bizarre incidents of drunkenness including a habit of "ritual territory marking" that involves urinating in public places."

Kinkade's company has also been sued by owners of Kinkade galleries for breaching "the covenant of good faith and dealing" - resulting in the payment of $860,000 (£500,000) by way of compensation. The court-appointed arbitration panel also said that his company "..painted an unrealistic and misleading picture of the prospects of success for a dealer", while using religious language to foster an atmosphere of trust." This should not be a complete surprise - Kinkade has been painting unrealistic pictures of one kind or another for years. Other cases against him are pending and could spell the end of his marketing empire. His bizarre behavior surely cannot help matters, witness the tale told by two ex-employees, which describes the "... disorder (he brought) to a Las Vegas performance by the illusionists Siegfried and Roy by repeatedly yelling the word "codpiece" from his audience seat, and urinating in public - in an elevator and on a model of Winnie the Pooh at a Disneyland hotel." "This one's for you, Walt," he is claimed to have said.

Kinkade now apologizes for having offended anyone by his behavior (as opposed to those offended by his paintings) but reveals his towering arrogance when denying charges of sexual harrassment. Referring to the women who work in the galleries he said "You've got to remember, I'm the idol to these women who were there. They sell my work every day, you know. They're enamoured with any attention I would give them. I don't know what kind of flirting they were trying to do with me..." It would appear that beneath his Christian, Painter of Light exterior the painter of such works as "Cobblestone Christmas" is as ugly as his saccharine-saturated daubings. For more on Kinkade read this less than flattering review from MetroActive and another,The Writer of Dreck from Salon.com, on Kinkade's book "Cape of Light". Laura Miller tells us "With his appalling new novel, Thomas Kinkade, "The Painter of Light™," makes a strong bid to become the world champion of vapid, money-grubbing kitsch." The final word is from one of his remaining satisfied gallery owners who manages to shift $25,000 of his trash per month. "This is God-given talent. There is no one in our generation who can paint like that." For which we may be truly thankful - one like him is more than enough.

They Killed Chef! - the bastards. Further developments in the South Park/Isaac Hayes/Scientology story (see Scientology Balls). According to this BBC report "South Park has exacted revenge on its former star Isaac Hayes by turning his character Chef into a paedophile and seemingly killing him off." It appears that Chef is brainwashed by the Super Adventure Club (whoever could they be?), rehabilitated by psychiatry and a strip club, but sadly re-brainwashed "...before falling off a bridge and being burned, stabbed and mauled by a lion and a grizzly bear." Earlier recordings of Hayes supply his dialog - it will be interesting to see how he reacts. There are already tales of a South Park show being pulled at the behest of Scientologist Tom Cruise - something his minions deny. (Here is an opinion piece by British MP Michael Gove on Hayes' departure in which he says "...the one thing that Scientologists need more than anything else is ridicule. A religion founded by a science-fiction writer in the 1950s which invites its followers to believe in an inter-galactic tyrant called Xenu and offers them the chance to control time itself by becoming “Operating Thetans” deserves nothing less.")

Hello Kitty - if you believe what some people say the British Isles are full of big mysterious cats, far larger than any domestic moggie, even a Maine Coon. Using the cryptozoologist's scale of cat measurement, these creatures often exceed 1.2 Labradors and, given the number of sightings, there must be loads of them. These cats are particularly unusual in that they leave no trace of their presence. One would expect an unambiguous spoor or even a giant hairball should have turned up by now. 80 wrote about these "anomalous big cats" (ABCs) back in 2002 (What's New Pussycat?) and despite lots of sightings since then no convincing evidence has emerged. This Guardian article looks at ABCs of all kinds and anticipates the British Big Cats Conference, where more tales of sightings, blurry photographs and plastercast pawprints will be made public. The conference home page harks back 40 years to the first sightings of one of these supernaturally elusive beasts, the Surrey Puma. That's 40 years in which no convincing physical trace, not even a hair or whisker of these big cats has been produced. Unless these creatures are related to the Cheshire Cat or Black Shuck and can disappear at will where have they been hiding all these years? In 80's view this is not so much hunting live cats, more like flogging a dead horse. But then 80 could be wrong - the British Big Cats Society (BBCS), motto Prove and Protect, has a large picture of a skull on its web page "...found by a Devon farmer in July 2005 that has now been identified as that of a puma."

Ban the Bunny - Easter, the spring celebration sacred to pagans and Christians alike, has two major symbols, especially for kids, eggs and bunnies. These are both relics of a pagan past, the bunny was originally a hare sacred to the fertility goddess Eostre and the eggs, fertility symbols. This kind of information is widely known and takes very little time to verify but it would appear that Tyrone Terrill, human rights director of the city of St Paul, Minnesota was either too busy, lazy or ignorant (strike out that which does not apply) to do so. Terrill had a small Easter display removed from the lobby of city hall "out of concern that it would offend non-Christians". The display, paid for privately, consisted of " a cloth Easter bunny, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter"". Rather than offend non-Christians this blatant pagan symbolism is in fact far more likely to offend fundamentalist Christians. Back in April 2004 (Passion of the Bunny) 80 wrote about a Christian group who staged a grisly play featuring the onstage whipping of the Easter Bunny. The clod who staged this entertainment, Patty Bickerton, a "youth minister", justified not only the showing of bunny-whipping but self-mutilation and drunkeness to children in the audience saying "We wanted to convey that Easter is not just about the Easter bunny, it is about Jesus Christ." (And the bunny-whipping and other stuff did this? Yeah, right). Now 2 years down the line we have another clod, who even admits no one had complained to him, banning the bunny for fear of offending non-Christians. With so many religious groups on the alert for anything that offends them or their precious superstitions this political correctness thing must be like walking on eggs, and can result in stupid and petty self-censorship. Come to think of it, 80 is offended by the displays of an instrument of torture and execution outside many churches but it does at least serve to mark them as places to avoid. Every cloud has a silver lining.

Start Making Sense - read these two statements from Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the judge in the trial taking place in Afghanistan of Abdul Rahman, who stands accused of converting to Christianity and faces the death penalty if convicted. "The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back." "Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity." How the hell can this judge reconcile these pronouncements? The answer is he doesn't have to - reason or logic mean nothing to rabid religionists. There is a second example in the same article "What is wrong with Islam that he should want to convert?" asks an agitated Abdul Zahid Payman. "The courts should punish him and he should be put to death." What is wrong? Update - under international pressure it looks like President Hamid Karzai has pushed the judge to try to find a way to bury Rahman's case  by raising doubts over his sanity and nationality. Just what would happen to Rahman if he was released was made obvious by angry protestors who demanded that he be tried and executed for converting to Christianity. 80 reckons most of them are keen to exercise the stone-throwing skills they practised under the Taliban. Update - Rahman has been released from custody but his current whereabouts are unknown. If he stays in Afghanistan it is unlikely he would survive for long. According to this Washington Post report hours before his release "..hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting "Death to Christians!" marched through Mazar-e Sharif in northern Afghanistan to protest a court's decision Sunday to dismiss the case." "Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed". "Islam demands it"? Does this fanatic presume to speak for all 1.2 billion Muslims?

Atheist Scum - Do you live in the US? Are you an atheist? Do you keep quiet about it? You would seem to have plenty of incentive. According to the University of Minnesota, in a recent telephone poll "Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry." Another finding from the survey belongs in the "yeah, we know that" category. It seems that "The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts." Penny Edgell, the study's lead researcher "...believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”" Here yet again is the old idea that you need to believe in a supernatural being's capacity to reward or punish human behavior, usually in some future form of existence, in order to behave morally. It seems that no one can be trusted unless they can feel the gimlet gaze of a vengeful God boring into the back of their skull. Yet oddly enough, in real life in the US most of those who transgress the law are believers - as are those who bend and misinterpret those same laws to further their political aims. (for some interesting info on world atheist numbers look here and for evidence that believers are actual harmful to society see Faith's Fatal Forfeit.)

Not Overly Fond - Pope Ratzinger, during a ceremony to celebrate mass with 15 shiny new cardinals, (none of them "actively" homosexual, we can safely assume) spoke of the 1981 assassination attempt on his predecessor, Pope Wojtyla. Referring to Wojtyla's particular obsession with cult figure Mary, the mother of Jesus, Ratzinger recalled that he believed it was her presence which miraculously allowed him to survive the shooting. This is often taken to mean that Mary had a special fondness for Wojtyla. Maybe, but if she had really liked him why didn't the bullets miss completely instead of slamming into his abdomen, left hand and right arm? It would seem that, like the Sky Fairy that impregnated her, the old girl moves in mysterious ways.

War on Truth - the majority of the US population is Christian, the president of the US and his political party are in power thanks largely to the voting power of Christians, the administration is doing its best to erode the barrier between religion and state and that favored religion is Christianity. The administration is packing the Supreme Court to favor conservative Christianity. Now has 80 missed anything here? Oh yes, these same Christians are a persecuted minority. Do you detect some kind of disconnect between those first three statements and the fourth? Just checking. Given all of the above just what are prominent Christian politicians (all Republican) and conservative Christian leaders doing attending a conference called "War on Christians and the Values Voters in 2006."? They are there to give the false impression to their followers that Christians in the USA are being persecuted for their faith. As one attendee told the Washington Post "It doesn't rise to the level of persecution that we would see in China or North Korea. But let's not pretend that it's okay." It all comes down to the strategy beloved of dictators and fascists - the Big Lie. These people already have a captive audience of Christians so the trick is to keep repeating the lie over and over again to them. One might think, how the hell do they expect to get away with it? The answer is that they have been getting away with it for years, undoubtedly helped by the fact that many believers will only listen to others of their kind, leading to an echo chamber amplification of whatever falsehoods or misconceptions they are fed.

One star of the conference was Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader (now indicted on a charge of money laundering) who said "We are after all a society that abides abortion on demand, that has killed millions of innocent children, that degrades the institution of marriage and often treats Christianity like some second-rate superstition. Seen from this perspective, of course there is a war on Christianity." Yes, abortion is legal but it is certainly not something that any woman would enter upon lightly. It is not obvious whether the "millions of innocent children" refers to are aborted fetuses, most no more than a cluster of cells, or the children that have been killed as collateral damage in the wars waged by his Christian president. As for Christianity being a second-rate superstition, this seems fairly uncontentious and not something DeLay or anyone else can disprove. It is worth remembering DeLay's disgusting performance in the wake of the 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami when he implied that those who perished had done so because they were not Christians.(see DeLayed Reaction) His kind of Christianity has nothing to do with peace and love and everything to do with prejudice and hate. (For the prejudicial attitude in the US to atheists see Atheist Scum)

This sad bunch of uptight religious bigots is not persecuted at all, but boy, how they love to shout out about their supposed victim status. When one thinks of those who have been tortured for their faith or forced to live under unendurable prejudice and then one looks at the pudgy, rich, white males attending this conference (including sword-seller Rod Parsley, see Weapon for Sale) it is hard to contain the outrage felt at their arrogance in numbering themselves among those who have suffered real persecution. 80 has long felt that religion, whilst deserving no more respect than any other superstition, should be tolerated, but when it comes to DeLay, Parsley and these others, who have made a good, fat living out of their "faith" and yet whine about persecution even mere toleration is too good. Happily not all Christians are hate-filled, manipulative demagogues as the following two quotes on the conference demonstrate.

"Certainly religious persecution existed in our history, but to claim that these examples amount to religious persecution disrespects the experiences of people who have been jailed and died because of their faith," said K. Hollyn Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

"This is a skirmish over religious pluralism, and the inclination to see it as a war against Christianity strikes me as a spoiled-brat response by Christians who have always enjoyed the privileges of a majority position," said the Rev. Robert M. Franklin, a minister in the Church of God in Christ and professor of social ethics at Emory University.

End Times - good times for fundamentalist nitwits? Read Maureen Farrell on Apocalyptic Times to discover that rather than coming "like a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:2-4) the day of the Lord is being preceded by any amount of razzmatazz. Even pop tart Madonna has reportedly bought a house overlooking the Sea of Galilee to "get a bird's eye view of the Messiah when he returns". If you need to make sure you are at the right place at the right time keep an eye on the Rapture Index, "the prophetic speedometer of end-time activity". It all seems so funny until you remember there is a guy in the White House with his finger on the button who believes this crazy shit.

Forget the Illuminati - the Priory of Sion, the Lizard Dynasty - here is a conspiracy far more insidious and evil, its tentacles reaching into the very heart of Hollywood. Peter Hartlaub has revealed something even more shattering than the second coming of Jesus - namely the second coming of the mullet. (if this news doesn't scare you enough check out the photo accompanying Hartlaub's piece of  Duane "Dog" Chapman of reality show "Dog the Bounty Hunter" sporting "a mullet for the ages".)

Prayed in Vain - on the subject of prayer this study, reported here in the Washington Post (WP), attempted to find just how useful intercessory prayer was for 1,800 heart-bypass patients. The result? Not at all. The $2.4 million study undertaken on behalf of the Templeton Foundation (see Of God and Mammon) showed no benefit. Given such an outcome the WP quotes Bruce Flamm of the University of California, himself no stranger to prayer studies, as saying "I would hope that these results, combined with similar recent findings, would encourage scientists to stick to science and stop dabbling in the supernatural." A nice sentiment, but one unlikely to deter believers who have so much emotional capital invested in the notion of prayer that they will keep trying and trying to validate this particular example of wishful thinking. The Post tells us even those keen on " incorporating more spirituality into medicine" (whatever the hell that means) are likely to regard this result as the end of investigation. One ridiculous reason offered for a continuation given was that " proponents of such research said the work is important because so many people believe in prayer".

Prayer's Prey - "In fact, the researchers from Harvard Medical School and five other U.S. medical centers found--to their bewilderment--that coronary bypass patients who knew strangers were praying for them fared significantly worse than people who got no prayers. The team speculated that telling the patients about the prayers may have caused 'performance anxiety,' or perhaps a fear that doctors expected the worst." Chicago Tribune

"Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

"Prayer is of no avail. The lightning falls on the just and the unjust in accordance with natural laws." Robert Green Ingersoll

Q. "When did you realize that you were God?"
A. "While praying. I realized I was talking to myself."
--The 14th Earl of Gurney (Peter O'Toole), who has the delusion that he is Jesus Christ in The Ruling Class  (the above quote was lifted from the page on prayer in The Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll - highly recommended.)

"Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea." Mark Twain, Letters From the Earth

Crucifixion? - Line on the left. One Cross Each.....It will be news to most fundagelical Christians that, while many thousands have suffered this horrible form of torture and execution, most of them were not Christians. (Following the abortive Slave Revolt led by Spartacus some 6000 of his followers were crucified along the Appian Way). Still, when crucifixion is mentioned the name of Jesus always crops up, as in this piece headlined "Image of Jesus' crucifixion may be wrong, says study" It seems that The Royal Society of Medicine in the UK has produced a study saying "The evidence available demonstrates that people were crucified in different postures and affixed to crosses using a variety of means." One of the authors, Piers Mitchell of Imperial College London adds "Victims were not necessarily positioned head up and nailed through the feet from front to back, as is the imagery in Christian churches." Mitchell also says " Based on the evidence, we simply do not know how people died during crucifixion. While there are a number of theories, most have been developed to fit religious beliefs rather than the evidence". This should hardly be surprising for Christian depictions of the crucifixion of Jesus did not appear until many decades after the supposed date of his death. (In fact one of the earliest known images, circa 200 CE, mocks Christianity, for it shows a man, with the head of an ass, nailed to a cross and is captioned "Alexamenos worships his god".)

After looking at the different possible methods by which crucifixion was carried out the study concludes that barring some new evidence it will never be known whether Jesus was hung upside down, sideways, crouching or whatever. As there is no dignified way to portray some poor sod dying from this cruel torture it is likely that Christian depictions will stay with the "conventional" image. What is not addressed is whether Jesus' crucifixion took place at all - at least on this Earth. The earliest New Testament writings, those of Paul, seem to consider the savior's sacrifice to be an unworldly event, unrelated to Roman capital punishment for treason or rebellion. It is only in the much later gospels that any detail is given and as these were written at least 40 years after the events they purport to portray they are hardly eyewitness accounts. And no, 80 does not give any credence to the Jesus survived crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, and had a family bullshit that has proved such a lucrative fantasy for Brown, Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln and others. The closer that one looks for any historical evidence the more unlikely it becomes that a man called Jesus ever existed, certainly in the form enshrined in the New Testament. See The Jesus Puzzle for a scholarly and exceedingly thorough examination of the savior god myth. And remember, "Always look on the bright side of life........" (The above has reminded 80 of a way to endear oneself to anyone wearing a crucifix. Point to the little figure thereupon and say, "That's nice, who is it, Spartacus?)

Bugged Out - good riddance to former House leader Tom DeLay, the political air will smell sweeter for his absence, maybe not by very much, but still sweeter. The beleaguered bigot, facing money laundering charges in Texas and a steadily-encroaching investigation into political lobbying and sleaze, is unlikely to return to the bug extermination business for, according to this Washington Post report, "Friends and associates of DeLay say they think he can make a prosperous future for himself as a corporate-paid legislative strategist, book author and speaker." Just so long as the Hammer can stay out of the slammer, that is. Most liberal commentators can barely disguise their glee at DeLay's departure - although naturally he himself has spun events very differently. In keeping with his star role at the recent War on Christians and the Values Voters in 2006 conference (see War on Truth) DeLay is playing the persecution card. This piece from Truthdig by Robert Scheer gives a rundown on this great Christian's current pack of troubles - and religious persecution isn't one of them. Giving his political support to "...Russian oil profiteers, sweatshop operators in the U.S. protectorate of the Northern Marianas, and American Indian gambling casinos afraid of competition." certainly are, along with the aforementioned money laundering. You can't call it persecution if you thoroughly deserve it, can you? (You can read more about the great man here)

Skating on Thin Ice - the attempted "scientific" explanation of biblical miracles has always seemed to 80 a pretty pointless exercise. So many assumptions have to be made, firstly, and most importantly, one has to prove that the events described actually happened somewhere other than in a writer's imagination. This is of course impossible and where all such "explanations" fail. A popular subject for those with the time to waste is the tale of the Plagues of Egypt but Professor Doron Nof, who has already cleared up the parting of the Red Sea, has moved on to the New Testament and Jesus' trick of walking on water. Nof, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, has decided the Naz was not walking on water but ice, after studying climate conditions prevailing at the time of the supposed life of Jesus. After his Red Sea revelation Nof says that he received hate mail and now the icy Galilee theory is attracting more, no doubt from rabid religionists anxious to protect their miracles but also from outraged atheist ice skaters. Nof says "They asked me if I'm going to try next to explain the resurrection." 80 advises him not to bother as George Romero has that one covered.

Breed for Victory? - there is a lovely old turn of phrase "to harbor a viper in one's bosom". Old it may be but it aptly describes the situation whereby Norway took in Iraqi refugee, Mullah Krekar, in the 90s. He now faces deportation after violating his refugee status and is judged a threat to national security. Krekar has nothing good to say about his hosts - or Europe in general. He believes there is a war going on between the West and Islam and he knows who is going to win. He told Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet "We're the ones who will change you. Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes (an unfortunate and inaccurate simile). Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries are producing 3.5 children. By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim." Assuming, for the sake of argument, these figures are accurate, this could well reduce the availability of enlightened bolt-holes such as Norway, that have proved so convenient for the likes of Krekar. No doubt this singularly unpleasant individual regards the liberal values of such places as mere weaknesses to be exploited. In the long run the "outbreed them" strategy that he thinks is a passport to some kind of victory for his interpretation of Islam may well fizzle out. If the western democracies make a better job of assimilating newcomers, drop the ghettoizing idiocy of "multiculturalism", and stop labelling people solely by their religion, then as immigrants become more affluent, and women are better educated and independent, their birthrate is likely to fall. In fact there is a great deal of pleasure in the idea that Krekar's dreams of domination will be foiled by the very people that he relegates to the role of baby factories. As noted by Amartya Sen (see A Breath of Sanity), the Nobel Prize winning economist, ".....education and health care have a significant part in the voluntary reduction of the birth rate."

Good News Bad News - here is a rare good news story - the incidence of HIV has dropped in the worst infected areas of India, which has an estimated 5 million people infected with the virus. The main reason would appear to be that, at least in the southern states, "new HIV infections may be declining...because of programs that promote awareness and condom use." This result needs following up but it should cause some re-thinking for two bodies that have campaigned against the promotion of condoms and sex education in favor of abstinence based on nothing more than religious convictions. These two are, of course, the Roman Catholic Church (see Wicked) and the Bush administration (see Strings Attached). Will they at least reconsider their attitude in the light of this news? Most likely not - the bad news is that decisions made for religious reasons are not affected by contrary evidence because they are not arrived at rationally in the first place. As Swift put it "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." In the case of the Catholic church a few brave souls have questioned the anti-condom policy such as some Spanish bishops (see Condom Split) and also Bishop Gilles Cote, who works in Papua New Guinea combating AIDS and who has had the temerity to suggest "..he was in favour of governments providing condoms to communities where extramarital sex and multiple partners were common." Cote claims he is not contradicting papal teaching as this also includes the law "thou shalt not kill". Prepare to read of his censure in the near future by the church authorities for challenging dogma.

Randi's Flying Pigs - for the last few weeks James Randi's Swift newsletter has been produced by other (very competent) hands while the man himself has been recuperating after heart surgery. Happily Randi is now well enough to contribute to Swift this week and has recorded an MP3 message on the James Randi Educational Foundation home page. The current Swift, by the way, has the added bonus of the Pigasus Awards described thus "April 1st is here, and it's time to give out the coveted Pigasus Awards. The categories change somewhat from year to year, and this time we have five to share with you. As my readers will know, these are announced via ESP to the winners, who are of course allowed to predict their winning of this honor by precognition. The Flying Pig trophies are sent to the winners via psychokinesis. We send; if they don't receive, it's perhaps due to their lack of PK ability."

Quote - from the sole survivor of the Sago Mine disaster, Randal McCloy Jr, "I thank God, mostly, because of Him, I am here." Quite what God thought of his 12 co-workers, who perished, is not known. The quote is from a Washington Post piece about McCloy's return home - he is also reported to have said "I'd just like to thank everybody for their thoughts and prayers. I believe that's it." Perhaps the Post report is incomplete but it is all well and good thanking people for their (useless) prayers but surely McCloy owes his survival to the tireless efforts of the dedicated rescue team and not telepathic messages sent to a magical being who shouldn't have let the disaster happen in the first place.

Telltale Elephant - right at the very end of a brief report in the Observer about a leaked Home Office document on the July 7th London bombings, after looking at the bombers, their methods and the possibility of an al Qaeda connection, there is one little telltale phrase that demands more attention, "..the four men were also driven by the promise of immortality." Rather than tucked in at the end of the column this should be one of the main points. As Richard Dawkins wrote in the aftermath of the 9/11 atrocity "I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end." It seems that we are no nearer to confronting the elephant several years on. This also ties in with Sam Harris' quote (see below) about moderate religion - the belief in a life beyond this one, whether it is held by the old ladies attending the local parish church or a jihadist bomber, are but two points on a continuum. The old ladies, whose cosy but irrational belief in a heaven that awaits those who faithfully follow their interpretation of God's will would be horrified to realise their mindset differs only in degree from that of those they consider fanatical murderers.

Sam Harris Interview - do take a few minutes to read this interview with Sam Harris in Truthdig. Harris, author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason and An Atheist Manifesto, talks to Blair Golson on a range of subjects, one of the most controversial being Harris' condemnation of "moderate" religionists, whom he views as enablers of their more extreme and violent brethren. "The most controversial aspect of my book has been this criticism I make of religious moderates. Most people think that while religious extremism is problematic and polarizing, religious tolerance is entirely blameless and is the remedy for all that ails us on this front. But religious moderates are giving cover to fundamentalists because of the respect that moderates demand of faith-based talk. Religious moderation doesn’t allow us to say the really critical things we must say about the abject stupidity of religious fundamentalism. And as a result, it keeps fundamentalism in play, and fundamentalists make very cynical and artful use of the cover they’re getting by the political correctness in our discourse." Sam Harris' own web site is here. Truthdig is a free online magazine which has a permanent link in 80's sidebar (along with much other good stuff) You can also sign up for a weekly email update in the top-right corner of any page on the Truthdig site.

South Park - thanks to the excellent Newsline (the National Secular Society's weekly newsletter) 80 has learned that the Norwegian Society of Heathens (!) was so outraged at the banning of two episodes of South Park (the Scientology one and the Virgin Mary one) that they have them free to download on their web site. Thank you, heathens!

Gospel Truth? - there isn't one. It has been amusing to watch the fuss over the so-called Gospel of Judas (GoJ), one of many gospels that didn't make it into the canon and which is now available in a modern translation. Many commentators seem to think that the GoJ is shocking and/or sheds new light on the Gospel story as is currently known. Some have downgraded the importance of the document saying that it is of late date and does not affect the historical picture painted by the New Testament (NT). In fact the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are no more or less historical than GoJ, they are merely the ones somewhat arbitrarily deemed authentic by the church authorities. Given the many discrepancies between them and the fact that they were all  written decades after the events they purport to describe they have no more claim to historicity than any other gospel. None of the four were meant to be historical accounts as we would now understand them - they are meant to show how the events in the life of Christ that they portray were fulfilments of Old Testament (OT) "prophecies". A good case can be made that the OT was ransacked by early Christians for such prophecies and then the gospels were written around them. It is certainly true that the earliest writer in the NT, Paul, knows little or nothing of any human Jesus and does not seem bothered by this. In fact Paul's savior god and the itinerant Galilean preacher of the later gospels have nothing in common at all. There is, 80 can now reveal, another Gospel According to Judas by Polish writer Henryk Panas, published in English in 1977 (ISBN 0091311403). It is a novel set half a century after the death of Jesus and features an aging Judas answering questions about the "...Gospel years from a learned and worldly friend". It is certainly well-researched and a fascinating read - and also has the bonus of being at least as "authentic" as any other gospel. (For those interested in the origins of the Gospels and the Jesus myth do take a look at The Jesus Puzzle. You can read the entire GoJ in .pdf format here)

Class Action - Unlike Tony Blair, Ruth Kelly, and Lord Adonis the National Union of Teachers (NUT) is concerned for the future of the UK education system. This report in the Guardian tells us "Teachers are to call for an end to state funding for faith schools in an attempt to halt the growing influence of religious organisations in education and end the controversial teaching of creationism." The fact that this subject even needs raising at the NUT annual conference is shocking but Blair and his fellow Christians seem determined to increase the number of state-funded sectarian schools and if not openly condone, at least turn a blind eye to the teaching of religious fairy tales as fact. (See Smirking Hypocrite) A motion to be debated at the conference "...calls for an end to state funding for faith schools, and legislation "to prevent the growing influence of religious organisations in education and the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as a valid alternative to evolution". The very idea that the curriculum can be adulterated with the superstitions of rich private individuals such as Peter Vardy merely demonstrates how misguided and open to abuse the government's City Academy scheme is. In this instance it is little more than a way for outdated, divisive, religious worldviews to be pushed onto a captive audience of kids and is a betrayal of parents' trust. If you are a rabid religionist of whatever stripe and want your kid to hear sectarian propaganda not only at home but in school as well, pay for it - send your offspring to a private school that will cater for your eccentricities - don't expect the UK taxpayer to fund such fantasies. After his bloody nose in the last general election the Reverend Blair promised to listen more to the electorate, the implication being that the wishes of the voters would be actually reflected in government policy. A recent poll showed that the majority of respondents were against government plans to expand the number of sectarian (faith) schools and concerned about the effect of such schools on society. Is there any sign that Blair et al have taken this onboard? Of course not. They are on a mission from God. (for more on the religious takeover of the curriculum see here and also Pious Deceit)

Royal Society Says Enough - the complacency, nay hypocrisy, of the Blair government on the subject of education is beginning to lead to much-needed action against religious fantasies being taught in Britain through the promotion of taxpayer-funded sectarian (faith) schools and the Vardy-funded academies (which still cost the public a pretty penny). The Royal Society (RS), the country's foremost scientific academy has produced a statement "...on evolution, creationism and intelligent design." This is a welcome retort to those who have fallen for the seductive, and superficially reasonable idea of presenting ideas of how life evolved other than natural selection (Darwinism) in the interest of "fairness" or "balance". In the real world there are no viable, that is scientific, evidence-based candidates that could serve as alternative explanations to natural selection. Even a cursory examination of the motives of those who push for these (non-existent) alternatives shows that the only acceptable alternative for them is a Judaeo-Christian based supernatural one, whether this is called creationism or Intelligent Design, which has been rightly described as little more than creationism in a lab coat. In its concluding paragraph the RS statement manages to skirt round the religious whiners who feel their supernatural world view has to be represented in the curriculum but has not watered down the warning of the  danger to education posed by fundamentalists. "Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various religious beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs." That this needs saying at all in 21st century Britain is both depressing and heartening. Depressing because it shows how bad things have become that superstition is on the return, backed by private money and government acquiesence, but heartening because an august body, the RS, has chosen to make an unequivocal stand against this new dark age.

Meanwhile one of these promoters of nonsense, David Rosevear, of the Creation Science Movement (an oxymoron if ever there was one) in response to the RS statement came up with the tired and discredited claptrap that "It is an atheistic faith position. Atheism is as much a religion as the Church of England...." Quite how a lack of belief in the supernatural is equivalent to belief in the supernatural is far from clear but is surely indicative of how little the likes of Rosevear actually understand about science. Science and the theory of evolution have nothing to say about whether God exists or not - it is only when religion makes claims that are testable can science be involved. It is as though the creationists cannot conceive of any explanation that does not involve an argument from authority. They cannot understand, and quite likely are frightened by the provisional nature of science's findings, the lack of utter certainty. They completely fail to see the arrogance of their own position, that of claiming absolute certainty in the face of overwhelming and steadily accumulating, evidence to the contrary. Science changes, often reluctantly, as new knowledge becomes available but it does change - it is an open-ended project, always remaking itself in the light of new discoveries. The creationists don't have to do any research, not even "creation science", as they already know the answers from reading their holy book. A book which they take at face value, blissfully unaware what biblical scholarship has revealed about how that book came to be. It is not the infallible word of a deity but the work of many all too fallible human beings and full of many cruel and disgusting things. They are happy in their abysmal ignorance and would like to deceive your children into joining them by infiltrating the classroom under the guise of balance and fairness. When two things are so utterly mismatched as creationism and evolutionary theory there can be no balance. One is totally unsupported by any evidence and is based upon Iron Age texts from the Near East and the other is a scientific theory in the proper meaning of the word - "A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena." There is no balance or fairness in pretending supernatural fairy tales are on a par with evidence-based conclusions arrived at by the scientific method. Creationism is just plain wrong and has no place in the classroom unless it is discussed, along with the myriad other creation myths humans have dreamed up, in a comparative religion or philosophy class. To allow such fantasies into the curriculum at any other point, whether for fairness or balance or because a millionaire fundamentalist is paying the bill or because of "respect" for religious beliefs would be wrong and a crime against the young minds that would be consequently polluted. The Royal Society quite rightly has taken a stand against this worrying trend as has the National Union of Teachers (see Class Action) but will Blair and chums listen? Don't hold your breath, there is no evidence that this bunch of hypocrites listens to anyone other than themselves.

Above all, teaching the next generation superstitious nonsense is a tremendous danger to everyone on the planet, particularly in the field of biology. "God did it" is no explanation whatsoever and leaves us ill-prepared to combat the many threats that face the human race, something noted in the RS statement. "The process of evolution can be seen in action today, for example in the development of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to pesticides by insect pests, and the rapid evolution of viruses that are responsible for influenza and AIDS. Darwin's theory of evolution helps us to understand these problems and to find solutions to them." If you live in the UK and are understandably worried about not only children's education but also the health and survival of succeeding generations make your views known about faith/sectarian schools and the adulteration of the curriculum - email or write your MP - this page by the British Humanist Association can help with suggestions and text. It will only take a minute or two and could well be the most important thing you do today - or any other day. ( 80 referred above to the arrogance of creationists/IDiots. A wonderful illustration of this can be found in The proper reverence due those who have gone before from the highly recommended Pharyngula blog.)

Quote - "The ID (Intelligent Design) crew, to use Darwin's own phrase, "look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond [their] comprehension". The first Hawaiians to cast eyes on Europeans were so astonished by their great vessels that they thought their builders to be gods. The ID argument is just the same. It is the logic of ignorance, idleness and incuriosity: I am very smart, even I do not understand this, so why bother to explain it except by bringing in God (if necessary under an alias)?" Steve Jones, writing in the Daily Telegraph - The evolution of clots.

The Bible's All Wrong, Again - enter the syntactically-challenged world of Mark Morford, "Is it not just tremendous heaps of casually blasphemous fun to learn, once again and for the thousandth time, that the Bible -- that happy mish-mashed messed-up hodgepodgey cocktail of myths and folklore and revisionist propaganda and who's-your-daddy reproaches intermixed with lovely stories of redemption and hope and oh yes sin and hellfire and death -- is so full of colorful holes it might as well be a bedsheet from Baghdad Target?" Morford joins the Judas gospel fray and adds his own idiosyncratic insights to the discussion. (More Morford outpourings are archived here.)

Steve Jones - as a follow-up to the Royal Society's statement on creationism (see below) see this lecture by Steve Jones on Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right available as streaming video from the Royal Society. While the presentation is less than perfect this is a minor drawback to a fascinating talk. Also see the Royal Society's archive page for more from the likes of John Barrow, Tim Berners-Lee, Martin Rees and Bill Bryson. Recommended.

Dark Side - internationally-known London department store Selfridges has turned to the dark side and in doing so may well fall foul of the law. See Tony Youens' Selfridges and the Philosopher's Stone for the story of how a once respectable store is fleecing the gullible by having in store a couple of "psychics". Tony goes to far as to offer to test this pair to ascertain whether Selfridges is ripping people of with a cheap but lucrative gimmick or is really offering worthwhile advice and information from customers' dead friends and relatives. As John Jackson points out the Fraudulent Mediums Act (1951) may well apply. This could be one to watch......(Also from Tony Youens - how much does your soul weigh? 21 grams? see here)

And Now the Good News - take a look at this week's Swift - James Randi has recovered enough from his recent heart surgery to take the helm once more. The free weekly newsletter has in recent weeks been in the very capable hands of various guest contributors but now the boss is back. You can find the latest issue at The James Randi Educational Foundation's web site or click the link in Number 80's sidebar - either way you won't regret it. Past issues are archived online here.

Easter Equation - all the timeless elements are there for this great Christian story. Cannibalism + vampirism (Last Supper) + zombieism (Resurrection) = Happy Easter! (Oops, nearly forgot sadomasochism)

Clairvoyant Con - the Daily Mirror has a nice little piece about a fake clairvoyant (there is no other kind) who was caught swindling a widow out of £6500 and who also admitted stealing £6,491 from an 82 year-old blind man. In sentencing this particularly worthless individual the judge could not resist saying "I'm sure that you have foreseen that you are going to prison. You don't have to be clairvoyant when you have done what you did to see that."

A Long War - two opinions "Violent extremism is a danger posed as much to Europe as to America and elsewhere. And, as during the Cold War, the struggle ahead promises to be a "long war" - that will cause us all to recalibrate our strategies, perhaps further adjust our institutions, and certainly work closely together." Donald H Rumsfeld, USA Secretary of Defense, 2006

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [President] is extended. Its [his] influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." James Madison, future President of the USA, 1795

Blair's Ignorant Blather - "I speak with great diffidence and humility as a member of another faith. I am not qualified to make any judgements. But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance." The Right Honorable Anthony Blair, Prime Minister, leader of the Labour Party and, apparently, part- time theologian, as reported in The Muslim Weekly. 80 is not sure which orifice Blair was talking through, but he should stick to his day job. On second thoughts, as this consists of aiding and abetting warmonger George Bush, ennobling those who give money to the Labour party and damaging children's education perhaps he should just go - and the sooner the better. Until then a thorough refutation of his ignorant and ingratiating blather about the Quran can be found remarkably easily. Ahead of its time in attitudes to women? see here. Extols science? see here. It is inclusive? see here. As for the great man's view of the vast expansion of Islam in the early Middle Ages, "He added that under the guidance of the Qur’an, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands was "breathtaking"". Breathtaking maybe, also violent, cruel and oppressive. Funny, you'd  think he would know more about invasions, given his record. Blair also said "We look back to the early Middle Ages, the standard bearers of tolerance at that time were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian" That is if your definition of tolerance included forced conversion or alternatively "dhimmitude" - besides it is now the 21st century not the early Middle Ages and much of Islam today is anything but tolerant - look at the stories of Abdul Rahman or Theo van Gogh. Perhaps Blair would like to gain permission to build a Christian church in Saudi Arabia or to seek converts to his Christian faith in Pakistan as a gauge of the tolerance shown in those countries? (80 thanks the Skeptic's Annotated Quran for references. Also see the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and Book of Mormon)

Which Way to Mecca? - 80 has always been fascinated by the attempts of believers to reconcile matters of faith with the findings of science. Obviously the fundamentalist has the bigger job to do here as the more moderate religionists have already accepted compromises that the fundamentalist could not even consider - such as the idea that the stories of the Bible or Quran are allegories and not to be taken literally. This particular route can lead to the sort of religion that has managed to do away with most of the supernatural elements and yet whose adherents still claim has a meaning beyond the mundane. The world view encapsulated in the Quran, however, is an early medieval one, which is causing Malaysia's National Space Agency or Angkasa a bit of a headache. It isn't to do with the effects of low-G, effective life support or any of the usual human spaceflight concerns - it is, how do Muslims pray in space? Traditionally one is supposed to pray five times a day, facing the direction of Mecca. Quite how this can be achieved while orbiting the planet every 90 minutes with multiple sunsets and sunrises is a bit of a puzzler, although perhaps Angkasa could try and find out how Saudi prince and payload specialist Salman Abdelazize Al-Saud managed during his week on board Space Shuttle flight STS 51-G.

Quote - "We need to be concerned that some of the faith communities have agendas which are at odds with reason and progress and the interests of science. My aspiration would be to have a secular education system in which all faiths are honoured and respected." Rev Chris Wilson, chaplain at Cambridge Regional College speaking at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers' conference.

Recipes - this may come a little late for this year's paschal celebrations but the Easter Bunny Stew brought to you by the Landover Baptist Church is bound to taste good any time of the year. If the leporine repast whets your appetite why not follow it with The Passion Fruit of the Christ Easter Soufflé? Divinely delicious.....(thanks to the Chavette for this culinary info.)

A Question - "Religious schools are indoctrinating and divisive. The people don't want them. So why are MPs backing them?" asks Polly Toynbee in a Guardian piece titled This is a clash of civilisations - between reason and superstition. Like many other observers she is puzzled why sectarian schooling finds so much favor with the UK government when plenty of evidence exists (Northern Ireland) that it divides children along religious lines and creates enclosed and mutually hostile communities. To give children religious labels is absurd - they are children, yet to make their minds up about the world, not Christians or Muslims. They should certainly be taught about the world religions as part of their cultural background, but the tenets of such faiths should also be examined in classes that promote critical thinking, not indoctrination. At the moment the Blair government seems hell-bent on expanding the number of state-supported religious schools in the UK despite plenty of evidence that the majority of the population do not want this. In a poll held in 2005 64% of those questioned agreed that "the government should not be funding faith schools of any kind". So much for the government reflecting the views of the majority. If they are not stopped Blair and chums will seriously damage the education system of the UK, funding schools that turn out pupils who define themselves by their supernatural beliefs - beliefs they have been told are superior to those of their neighbors. Such a system is laying up trouble for generations to come. All state funded and supported schools should be non-sectarian.

Bish Bash - still with the reconciliation of faith and science is this Observer opinion piece by Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, called Science does not challenge my faith - it strengthens it and subtitled "Atheists accuse the church of lack of reason. It is time that they examined the poor logic of their own arguments". The confrontational nature of that introduction led 80 to believe that Harries has something interesting or original to say. Disappointingly this does not appear to be the case. What seems to have got Harries' goat is what he calls "a paradox about the current bout of media atheism." and he sets out to illustrate the "four fundamental failures" of such atheism. His first target is Richard Dawkins' recent two-part TV show on the dangers of religion. That Harries' is happy to state that the show was "...suggesting that religion, not the love of money, is the root of all evil..." merely demonstrates that his research was less than thorough, for Dawkins has made it known that the name of the show, "The Root of All Evil?" was not his choice but the TV company's. A minor point, perhaps, but one that needs making. As for the "..current bout of media atheism." what little of it that exists is merely a reaction to the  aggressive religiosity so evident in the world today. To illustrate the first failure Harries acuses Dawkins (and Daniel Dennett) of focusing "exclusively on the worst examples and excesses of religion." Surely this makes sense as it is this resurgent and often violent fundamentalism that threatens all that humankind has gained in the last 300 or so years. The fact that those with dangerous and primitive ideas are in positions of power in the USA, Iran and elswhere is, it seems to 80, a damn' good reason to have a go at them. Harries' moderate version of Christianity, which he obviously wishes to disassociate from the extremists, is also a legitimate, if lesser target, for it still gives credence to dangerous beliefs, such as the existence of an afterlife. It is such beliefs that can make deluded young men fly airplanes into skyscrapers in the expectation of a reward in a life to come. Harries certainly chooses a very poor example to show the unfairness of Dawkins or Dennett in concentrating on "on the worst examples and excesses of religion." by saying that to judge religion by such extremes is akin to judging science on the basis of "creationist science". Harries' faith lies at one point of a spectrum of belief, and further along that spectrum lie the zealots and the fundamentalists, but it is still one spectrum, an unbroken continuum, whereas creationist "science" shares only one thing with science and that is the use (in fact misuse) of the word "science" - otherwise the two occupy completely different, non-contiguous worlds.

Harries' second example of the failure of "the current brand of atheism" is something that touches him personally. Again Dawkins is the villain of the piece who, in his show, accused the Bishop of betraying both reason and faith. In Harries' view Dawkins accused him of betraying reason by being religious and betraying faith because he did not apply Old Testament laws to modern life. If by "being religious" Harries includes believing in, say, the resurrection of Jesus, which is surely a very basic part of being a Christian, then yes, he is betraying reason. There is no evidence whatsoever for this belief, it is utterly faith-based and in that sense, a betrayal of reason. As for betraying his faith by not applying "Old Testament injunctions without qualification to modern society" did not his savior say "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:7) This sounds very much like the old rules are still in force. Certainly to a fundamentalist Harries is betraying his faith if he thinks the old laws can be ignored or watered-down for modern consumption. Amazingly he also makes the claim that most "philosophers, ancient and modern" believed in God and "have thought religious belief a matter of rational argument." He seems unaware that by believing in God in the first place such philosophers are prejudiced and have, in fact, already left rational argument behind. Taking refuge in what, to 80's unforgiving eye, looks remarkably like gobbledegook does little for his case - for example "...by definition, God is that reality whose existence makes a total difference to the believer's life, changing their whole perspective on everything in a way that pure logic by itself cannot do." If I understand this correctly he has just demolished his position that religious belief can be a "matter of rational argument". He follows this up with an even more incredible statement "...religious belief is a matter of considered judgment. It involves our aesthetic sense, our moral judgment, our imagination and our intuition." Certainly in 80's experience with very few exceptions a person's religion is dictated by that of their parents - a factor Harries does not even mention.

His third instance of failure by "current apologists for atheism" is "their simplistic notion that a scientific approach to life somehow rules out a religious approach." This, he says, is plainly false, citing the number of "trained scientists who believe in God." All this proves is the ability of some people to compartmentalize their thinking in order to avoid unresolvable paradoxes. In Harries' view the Christian public in Britain in the 1870s accepted evolution rapidly because "They quickly came to see that God works through secondary causes over a long period of time." Or, to put it another way, they warped their belief to accommodate the findings of science. The upshot of this, of course, is the God of the Gaps, a deity who exists only in those dwindling areas that science has yet to illuminate. Harries quotes an unnamed "modern thinker" with approval, "God doesn't just make the world; he does something much more wonderful. He makes the world make itself." This merely reminds 80 of Laplace's answer to Napoleon, who had asked the mathematician where God fitted into his equations of celestial mechanics, "Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis." The idea of God "making the world to make itself" cries out for the sharp razor of William of Occam. Harries finds "this simplistic understanding of the relationship between science and religion.." is dangerous in that it allows creationists to claim that the teaching of evolution is atheistic and should not be taught in schools unless accompanied by creationism. The fact that Dawkins (Harries' target of choice again) is an atheist has no bearing on the teaching of evolution. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about God or the origins of life - something the Bishop does not seem to understand. His totally unsupported statement that "I have seen an A-level science revision book which contains a scarcely concealed sense of glee that evolution disproves religion." adds nothing to his argument as it stands. Which revision book? Let's have author, title and ISBN number please - atheists don't take things on faith.

Harries' fourth failure is the " the weakness of present-day atheistic writing is that it simply fails to reckon with the appeal of a religious view of life to millions of people round the world today." This is because most of the population of the planet are spoon fed religion from birth. This overwhelming bias requires correcting through education - it is not a weakness of "present-day atheistic writing" but a lack of education. The introduction of comparative religion and critical thinking lessons would be beneficial but as these are lacking even in comparatively secular societies any change will sadly be a long time coming. This is still no reason to throw up one's hands in defeat, but to try and get the word out to those "millions of people round the world today." If we don't then you can kiss the human race goodbye. As H G Wells said "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." With fundamentalist loons such as the current President of Iran seeking nuclear weapons and the President of the USA  rattling a nuclear saber back at him Wells' words are more accurate now than they ever were.

The Bishop of Oxford closes his opinion piece with a little sermon. Calling the Christian Easter story "the most sublime story of God ever told, the most deeply moving account of what it is for God to be God. No one doubts that there are real difficulties in believing it, but for atheism to ring true, it must at least betray the occasional sigh of pity that it's not true." A sigh of pity? A sigh of relief is more like it - relief there is no capricious sky-fairy who gave his own son up to be tortured and murdered, relief that the world is not some giant Truman Show, complete with a creepy supernatural voyeur, relief that those who do not follow a bunch of Iron Age taboos will spend eternity being tortured in Hell. In its way the Bishop of Oxford's wishy-washy Christianity is almost as objectionable as the  rabid fundamentalist bible-belt version - particularly when one realizes that the former actually enables the latter.

Irony in Bronze - here is an interesting piece from the International Herald Tribune concerning the happy survival of a "magnificent, larger-than-life-size gilded bronze equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius" by a quirk of fate and ignorance. The art work, dating from the second century CE, owes its continued existence to the belief of otherwise iconoclastic Christians that the Emperor astride the horse was Constantine, famous for making their Jewish sect/mystery cult the official religion of the Roman Empire. Aurelius was, by contrast, a pagan philosopher of the Stoic school who wrote the Meditations. Constantine, however, was not quite the figure that ancient and modern Christians like to think he was. The famous Edict of Milan legalized not just Christianity but all religions, and things like the strangulation of political enemies and the execution of his own son showed that he was no moral improvement on his pagan predecessors. Furthermore his famous vision before the battle of the Milvian Bridge, far from being that of a cross was a vision of Sol-Invictus, afterwards commemorated on coinage.  His reported "conversion" in 312 CE was nothing of the sort and he was only baptized on his deathbed. His legalization of Christianity had everything to do with the politics of the Eastern Empire and little to with faith. So the Christians preserved a superb statue of a pagan emperor falsely believing it to represent a pious Christian emperor who was in fact a political opportunist. His delayed baptism merely allowed him to act with the accustomed imperial ruthlessness unhindered by Christian morality, until at the moment of his death he could sin no further. 

Swift - it is good to have James Randi back and well on form in the latest issue of his weekly commentary, Swift. Britain's largest High Street pharmacy, Boots, has been around since 1849, and most people, if asked, would say that they are a reputable firm. 80 recommends that anyone of that opinion read Swift this week to learn that Boots is perfectly happy to sell pseudo-scientific trash, in this case an anti-snoring acupressure ring, regardless of whether the trinket works or not. This strategy fits well with a store that also peddles the useless and ridiculous Bach flower remedies (see Say It With Flowers). Other well deserved targets of Randi and his many correspondents' withering scrutiny are Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR), Gary Schwarz and his laughable definition of "good science" and hi-fi mumbo-jumbo. You can sign up for a weekly email notification of Swift or just click the permanent link in Number 80's sidebar - either way you will receive a weekly shot of sanity leavened with some waspish humor.

Holy Homophobia - that unelected group of self-appointed faith leaders, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) seems to be in a bit of a pickle. Not everyone is, to use that irritating phrase, on message regarding their attitude towards homosexuals. An exclusive piece from Pink News informs us that the MCB’s policy consultant, Muhammed Aziz, told them that there is an "..informal 5 year MCB plan to combat homophobia amongst Muslims and Islamophobia in the gay community..." But it seems that not everyone is happy with this very reasonable and welcome step. When other news media picked up the story and spoke with Inayat Bunglawala, the MCB's media secretary, he told them "There is no truth in these quotes, our position is very clear, our Secretary General (Sir Iqbal Sacranie) was nearly prosecuted for this because we maintain that homosexual relationships are sinful in Islam." Interesting phrase that, sinful in Islam. So if you are homosexual perhaps the best thing would be to leave Islam - except of course this is apostasy - a crime punishable by death. Not much of a choice, is it? The MCB demand respect for their beliefs yet do not offer even tolerance to the gay community. In fact so touchy have the MCB become over this story that Bunglawala has told Pink News that, when asked for comment, "I will always be too busy." Reports that he then flounced off, à la Joan Crawford, to sulk in his boudoir are completely unfounded. (read more about  this story here - the comments below the main article are worth a look particularly)

Got Broadband? - but what do you do with it? Take a look at this site with a wealth of links to multimedia presentations and discussions featuring the likes of Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer and others. A most excellent resource with literally hours of content - so make some use of that high speed connection!

Mind Boggling Bog Business - The authorities refurbishing a prison in Brixton, South London, have, at the behest of "faith leaders within the prison", repositioned the toilet bowls because "it was unacceptable for Muslim inmates to face Mecca while using the toilet." Perhaps these oh so devout inmates should have considered such a dreadful fate before committing the crime for which they were incarcerated. And just who are these "faith leaders within the prison"? Are they inmates, officially appointed chaplains or what, in another day and age, would have been called barrack-room lawyers? Surely most ordinary Muslims around the world are not even aware of the orientation of their loo so why is it a problem for these "faith leaders" of Brixton Prison? (This may also cause problems for the intrepid Malaysian cosmonauts whilst evacuating in orbit. See Which Way to Mecca?) Reading of this piece of utter nonsense 80 had a vision of the multicultural toilet of the future, built to swivel, thereby avoiding any possible offence to religionists of all persuasions. Then it came to mind that this had already been achieved in literary fashion within the pages of Spike Milligan's glorious Puckoon, ".....and even greater delight the whole Easence was mounted on ball-bearings. A control valve shaped like the crown of Hungary would release steam power that would revolve the commode. There had been a time when the Count had aborted revolving at sixty miles an hour and been given a medal by the Pope". (For those who wish to delve deeper into the whole Mecca/crapper problem take a look here and be enlightened.)

Nazis and Fundies - a marriage made in hell, uniting bigotry, xenophobia and ignorance appears to be on the rocks. Dr Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney and a lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford writes in the Guardian of the seemingly irretrievable breakdown of a union between the British National Party (BNP - see Toytown Nazis) and rabid fundagelicals save perhaps Rev Bob West, who believes "The mixing of races challenges the glory of God". Fraser easily dismisses that statement with a biblical quote of his own, from the misogynist tentmaker himself, St Paul, "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". The problem with using the bible to refute fascists, right-wing homophobes and similar human detritus is that you can find support for almost anything in the good book if you look hard enough, particularly in that litany of cruelty, violence and racism called the Old Testament. And it was racism that brought about the rift between what must have been the two most repulsive newly-weds ever. The fundies reject evolution because it contradicts their Genesis fairy tale, but the nazis were less keen to give it up because it can be warped (intentionally or through stupidity), in that near-imperceptible thickening of the spinal cord that passes for a fascist brain, to serve racist ends. It seems that Bob West's racist nonsense is not gospel for all fundies - the bible tells us every human is descended from Adam and Eve and so we all are related. As Fraser notes, this does not sit well with the BNP, who seem to equate Christian with "white". In their towering ignorance they don't know that the vast number of Christians in the world do not comply with their racist categorization. One of the more rabid and mouthy of the new breed of fundamentalists who model themselves closely on their equally repulsive American brethren is Stephen Green of Christian Voice, yet even a monstrous bigot such as he fails to meet the BNP's exacting standards. He was told "If you don't believe in Darwinian evolution then you are even dafter than you appear." - something that 80 finds hard to believe after witnessing Green's shambolic appearance on the BBC's Question Time. (See here for more on the show from MediaWatchWatch. It is them, by the way, that Fraser coyly refers to in his piece as the "media-watch organisation" who spotted the BNP presence in groups like Christian Voice. He really ought to give them their due.) For the moment the nazis and the fundies are going their separate ways but sadly they share too many "traditional" values such as hatred and bigotry for the split to be permanent. (also see Bigots, racists and worthless buffoons - so why do they keep getting elected? by Nick Cohen)

Truthiness Bites - 80 thought that there was no situation that could elicit feelings of sympathy for George W Bush but that moment came perilously near when, at the White House Correspondent Dinner, Dubya became the butt of Stephen Colbert's comedy tribute. Colbert, whose on-stage persona is that of a right-wing talk show host, laid into Bush with some wonderful lines. Referring to the president's poor poll ratings Colbert offered a barbed crumb of comfort saying, "...reality has a well-known liberal bias." As for the recent White House staff shake-up, Colbert attacked those who compared the move in its futility to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, "This administration is soaring, not sinking," he said. "If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg." Read a report of the evening of mirth and Bush's po-faced reaction by Joe Strupp - also see the fun here. Update - for a longer video and a transcript go here. (For a comment on the 2004 Correspondent Dinner see War Is Just So Damned Funny) Update - it seems that the mainstream US press, which found nothing wrong in Bush's sick WMD joke of two years ago, think Stephen Colbert went too far ripping into the president. 

Rock That Bites - here is a piece, Neil Young Clobbers the Thought Police, by John Stauber on Young's latest offering, Living with War. While Stauber's title is a little over the top the new album makes us fully aware of the singer/songwriter's disappointment,  disgust and fury at the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - sentiments shared by increasing numbers of people on both sides of the political divide. If you don't like Young's music you are unlikely to fall this album, but for 80 the combination of gritty distorted guitar and powerful lyrics works very well indeed. Young's anger burns as brightly as when he penned Ohio in reaction to the Nixon-era Kent State killings. For those who would like to try before they buy, and have broadband, Young is streaming tracks from Living With War at his website where you can also read the lyrics. Recommended. (In case of congestion you can also listen hear)

Three Piece Suite - here are three pieces that have caught 80's attention recently. First is a page from George Washington University's Daily Colonial entitled From Olympus to Sinai: A case against God, by Danny Kampf. Kampf poses a question that has surely occurred to many people but has not been articulated anything like often enough, "Why is it that if Bush (or any other politician for that matter) says that God is talking to him no one thinks he’s crazy, but if he were to say that God is talking to him through his hairdryer, we would lock him up in a loony bin?...What gives?" He also makes another good point which, while not original, still needs making again and again, "The truth is that we all know what it is like to be an atheist. It sounds weird, but it’s true. How many of you believe in Zeus? How many people pray to Poseidon? Who here worships Amun Ra? There is just as much evidence for any of these as there is for God, yet we dismiss them because they are utterly silly. Atheism is the lack of belief in the divine. In that sense, we are all atheists when it comes to Thor, Jupiter and Hephaestus; so why not God as well?" Kampf would help his readers see the point more clearly if he called "God" by a name - Yahweh or Jehovah - just calling the imaginary being "God" with a capitalized G is according it a status not given to the other deities used as examples and surely the whole idea is to show they are all equal in their absurdity. Do read the rest of Kampf's piece - it is refreshing (and reassuring) that such thoughts can find an outlet in Bush's America.

This is the country in which, Douglas Rushkoff informs us, according to a poll, " 92% of Americans say they believe in God, 85% believe in heaven, and 71% believe in the Devil". Rushkoff, an author, teacher, and documentary maker, sets out his stall in his opening paragraph, "Okay, so let's get into this God game. I think it's time to get serious about the role God plays in human affairs, and evaluate whether it's appropriate to let everyone in on the bad news: God doesn't exist, never did, and the closest thing we'll ever see to God will emerge from our own collective efforts at making meaning." He makes the very valid point that those fundamentalists who literally believe every word of the Christian bible are in fact abysmally ignorant of how the book came to be and how it was viewed in the past and therefore miss the true power of many of the stories. Rushkoff would like to rescue the bible from these know-nothing literalists and use the fables therein. "By appropriating these characters and metaphors as our own, we instill them with the power they require to release the stranglehold that true believers have over the myths built to help us face the truth, instead." The only fly in Rushkoff's ointment is a reference to the bible as one of " best books ever written about sacred magick..." To be fair this regrettable Crowleyism does have to be seen in the context of the paragraph and to whom it is addressed, "our friends involved in the occult arts" but in 80's view it still grates. He then redeems himself by a description of those literalist believers in biblical inerrancy as "people whose lives depend on ignoring the possibility of escape from the nightmare of eternal bondage to a vengeful deity."

Lastly we have all noted how the subject of religion, at one time barely covered in the media, seems now at times to dominate the news. Is it because people these days are more religious? As Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers' Magazine tells us "Part of the problem with assessing how religious we are is that it is not clear what "being religious" means". He looks at feelings commonly associated with religion such as "awe, reverence, gratitude and humility" and finds that they are as likely to be present in an atheist as a believer. This is a point that 80 has made several times before, as here "What "religious feelings" actually are is an interesting question - are they so very different from the feelings of awe and humility 80 finds looking at the stars in a clear night sky or the sense of hushed reverence felt in the stillness of a redwood forest?" The four qualities mentioned by Baggini have in a sense been hijacked by the religionists, or rather, not the qualities themselves but their names, giving the false impression that only they can experience such feelings. This, in 80's view, gives rise to another feeling that many religionists seem to enjoy - a wholly unjustified and irritating "holier than thou" smugness.

Welcome Back Zeus - back in June 2004 80 wrote about a move to allow worship of the pagan pantheon once more in Greece. (see By Olympian Zeus!) Naturally the Greek Orthodox Church views any such move with great disapproval, accusing these modern day pagans of "poisonous New Age practices". New Age? The Olympian gods long predate any Christian sect and, if anything, a return of their cult would be more of an Old Age revival. New Age indeed - perhaps the Orthodox Church is worried that the pagan festivals appropriated by the early Christian Churchs will return to their original function. Now an Athens court has said pagan worship should be unbanned. This, according to Vasillis Tsantilas (a pagan computer scientist), reported in the Guardian, is only the beginning "What we want, now, is for the government to fully recognise our religion. We will petition the Greek parliament, and the EU if that fails, for access to worship in places like the Acropolis, for permission to have our own cemeteries and, where necessary, to re-bury the [ancient] bones of the dead." Given the privileged position of Orthodox Christianity in Greece (all other religions except Judaism and Islam are banned) it would be good to see some competition from pagans - their beliefs are certainly no sillier than the Christians (who nicked a lot of their ideas) and their myths are immeasurably superior. Father Eustathios Kollas, boss of Orthodox priests, is having none of it, "They are a handful of miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion who wish to return to the monstrous dark delusions of the past." These are the monstrous dark delusions of a culture that made great leaps in astronomy, geometry and philosophy giving birth to many ideas that are still valid today. In 80's view a tale of a Father God who allows his son to be gruesomely tortured, crucified and then to return, zombie-like as payment for sins of human beings whom this Father God had made in the first place is a "monstrous dark delusion". Far better the pagan tale of brave Prometheus who, risking horrendous torture, stole fire from the gods to enlighten humankind. This same Prometheus passed on the knowledge of architecture, astronomy, mathematics, navigation, medicine, and metallurgy he had learned from Athena. This tale, at least to 80, is far more inspiring than some guilt-wracked, sin-obsessed Christian cult's fables could ever be.

No Virgins (or Grapes) - Whether he was an insignificant footsoldier or a cunning and devious terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui will not be getting his reward of 72 virgins (or was it white grapes?) just yet. The jury wisely decided to give him a life sentence in a maximum security prison, thereby depriving militant Islam of a martyr. Execution, the option favored by Bush, who had made sure the trial took place in Virginia, which has the death penalty, would have been plain stupid - but then with Bush backing it what else could it have been? An executed Moussaoui would have acted as a rallying cry for Muslim fanatics and no doubt have boosted recruitment for al Qaeda. Bush has already managed this on a huge scale with the bungled Iraqi occupation. It seems the dullard learns nothing whatsoever from his many mistakes. A capital sentence would have also set a dangerous legal precedent - that of executing someone for what the court believed he intended to do rather than what he actually did do. As Moussaoui was led away we are told he cried out "America, you lost. I won." Wrong.

Trouble In Woo-Woo Land - Allison Dubois is the "psychic" upon whose supposed exploits the TV show Medium is based. It stars Patricia Arquette as Dubois, who can "see dead people and can often hear the thoughts of those around her." While this may be true for the TV version, the real Dubois is apparently nowhere near that good. A while back Professor Gary Schwartz, a psychologist from the University of Arizona, tested Dubois and others for their psychic abilities. (The fact that Schwartz's experimental protocols leave much to be desired, while not directly relevant to this story, is certainly worth reading about.) Schwartz validated Dubois' abilities, at least to his own satisfaction, but now there seems to have been a falling out. On Dubois' web site she tells us "I was warned that when you become a public figure that people will come out of the woodwork to profit from you. Well I guess I'm no exception." And who is this woodwork-dwelling profiteer? None other than Professor Gary Schwarz. It seems the Prof has written a book featuring his work with Dubois and she is not happy. "One person who has been included on shows with me that I do not endorse is Dr. Gary Schwartz. I was disappointed to find out that the four years that I spent in the lab for "science" are, in my view, being misused by Dr. Schwartz -- even after I expressed my disapproval."

The argument between these two seems to hinge on a "Yes, you did", "No, I didn't" spat about whether Dubois knew that Schwarz intended writing a book on their experiments together. As Dubois tells us "Gary says that I asked him to write a book about me which is a figment of his imagination. I actually asked him to NOT write a book about me..." Furthermore it seems Schwartz was not the only one planning on writing of his experiences with Dubois and the other, less well-known, subjects. "I always understood that we were participating in scientific studies to help us and the world gain a better understanding of our abilities. Several of our "sitters" in the lab, unknown to many of the mediums, turned out to be writing their own books. In turn, Dr. Schwartz wrote forewords for those books or was mentioned in them. I was promised complete confidentiality and anonymity in how Dr. Schwartz and the University would report the results of these studies. Needless to say, I as well as other mediums were surprised to find our participation in the lab featured in so many other books." Which of course begs the question if Dubois is such a hotshot medium how come she never twigged any of this? Surrounded by "sitters" writing their own books this super psychic didn't have a clue. "Unknown to many of the mediums....." Many? Was there someone there more talented than Dubois? What about the ones that knew? Did they keep quiet or did they feel it wasn't worth mentioning, at least to Dubois?

Interestingly, she denies that a scientist character in the Medium show was based on Schwarz, and that, while he wrote a chapter on Medium, "He ... has no idea which parts of Medium are fact or fiction since he's not a part of the making of the show..." One hardly has to be a part of the show to realize that it is all fiction - what else could a show based on the experiences of a psychic be? (Any smart alec who answers "a documentary on self-deception" or a "documentary on fleecing the gullible" go to the top of the class) For all her whining about Schwartz 80 finds it hard to feel any sympathy for Dubois, as she is no doubt making a very nice living out of her brand of hokum. As for Schwartz, that towering figure of science, his latest book is out, "The G.O.D. Experiments: How Science Is Discovering God In Everything, Including Us." Discovering God in Everything? - one wonders if this includes the chapatis, tortillas, toasted cheese sandwiches and fenceposts on which His Son and His One-Night-Stand keep appearing? On reflection, as the Old Boy is supposed to be omnipresent it would be impossible not to find God in everything, wouldn't it? Or, perish the thought, is 80 being deliberately obtuse - again? (For more on psychics, particularly those deluded or despicable enough to claim they help the police with murder and missing persons cases, see Tony Youens' Commentary. For more on Schwartz's Afterlife Experiments see the Skeptic's Dictionary.)

Asinine Angler - US President George W Bush, when asked by a German newspaper what he considered to be his greatest triumph replied, "I would say that the best moment of all came when I caught a seven-and-a-half pound perch while fishing on my lake." 80 is sure to be joined by many others around the planet in fervently hoping that Bush will soon have lots and lots more time for this relaxing pastime - at least while he is fishing he is not getting anyone killed or tortured....apart from the fish of course.

Kiss of Geller - expect to hear of more bad news for injured soccer player Wayne Rooney as he has now received what amounts to the kiss of death. It seems that conjuror and tireless self-publicist Uri Geller will mastermind a wave of "healing energy" from "everybody in England" to aid the swift healing of Rooney's injured foot before the start of the World Cup. On Geller's past pathetic record of "helping" various sportsmen the safest thing Rooney can do is to ask the faux psychic (is there any other kind?) to shut up and go away.

Da Vinci Query - many visitors to the Number 80 site arrive via search engines, mainly Google in its various forms. 80's web counter (supplied by the efficient Webstat. Note to the paranoid - no personally identifiable information is collected) allows one to see just what queries folk entered - and some of them are passing strange. The following examples are from the last couple of months. "parliament urinating in public places", "gillian mckeith's ears", "tricks to circumcise yourself at home", "david beckham gopher picture", "how did men urinate wearing a cod piece in the 15th century" and "women without clods - Morocco". With some of these one can at least gain an inkling as to why they fetched up 80's pages, but others are completely baffling. There is one recent phrase (or permutations thereof) which has resulted in a rush of visitors who may have taken Dan Brown's puzzlingly popular thriller a little too seriously (no, not Opus Dei) and this is the question concerning "how many times did sir leigh teabing wear his spectacles".  (80 recently looked at the Da Vinci Code and the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail in Holy Hoaxes)

George, Dick, and Donald - may you live in interesting times. Here is a paragraph from the Washington Post on the feeling among Democrats they will take control of Congress come November - in fact so confident are they that plans are already being laid - "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview last week that a Democratic House would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, "You never know where it leads to." Oh, yes.

Self Harm? - here is a story from the Guardian that gives great cause for concern and must surely be a major factor in the reported alienation and dissatisfaction among some young Muslims living in Britain. Researchers from the universities of Derby, Warwick, Birmingham and Oxford have found that "Muslims are more likely than other religious minorities to be unemployed and live in poor housing in the most deprived parts of England.." and furthermore they "..were also particularly vulnerable to long-term illness and poor levels of education.." They noted that Muslim (and Sikh and Hindu) communities tend to remain concentrated in particular areas - the study states "... one in three Muslims in England live in the 10% of most deprived areas of the country." although they were still outnumbered by "white Christians"* in those areas. The big question is why "Muslim people are particularly vulnerable in terms of unemployment, limiting long-term illness, educational levels and housing conditions." One reason has already been mentioned and that is the tendency to cluster in particular regions for reasons of family and religion - these two factors seem to weigh more than the availability of jobs and effective social services. This has led to a ghettoisation of Muslim communities and a culture of victimhood and resentment which can be exploited by religious extremists on the one hand and non-elected and not necessarily representative bodies such as the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Parliament of Britain on the other. The frequent cries of Islamophobia are a symptom of this and show that, with the current model of multiculturalism, assimilation has little chance of success. British culture has been enriched by the contributions of previous immigrants and this process should continue. To come to the UK and stay within a version of the village culture that obtained at home, with all the various ethnic and religious strictures still in place, seems like a fairly pointless exercise.

Damned If You Do - damned if you don't. Here is a piece by Larry Elliot called Stop Hounding Ruth Kelly and subtitled "Who cares what she thinks? The test is what she does." Kelly, previously Secretary of State for Education and now overseeing communities and local government in Blair's frantic and bloody cabinet reshuffle following Labour's disastrous local election results, is well-known for her connection with Opus Dei. This Roman Catholic group (not to be confused with an organization of the same name in Dan Brown's thriller) whose avowed aims are "...to help people turn their work and daily activities into occasions for growing closer to God, for serving others, and for improving society." is viewed by many as sinister and certainly very "orthodox" in its views on contraception, abortion and homosexuality, all Roman Catholic obsessions. It is this last "sin" of homosexuality that has attracted attention for in Kelly's new job, or rather the part of the job where she is Minister for Women and Equality means she will be dealing with issues affecting gays and lesbians. Elliot says that although he has known Kelly for 15 years he does not know her attitude toward gays - but surely, as a member of Opus Dei, no matter how lowly, her attitude is already decided for her - by the church authorities. If she does not apply her beliefs to her job she is going against the founding tenets of Opus Dei - thereby making her a hypocrite. If she allows her faith to sway her judgement in matters dealing with gays then she is a bigot. Hypocrite or bigot - not much of a choice but hardly enough, sad to say, to bar her from holding a cabinet post in the Blair government. As this article in The Times notes (scroll down) Kelly's tactic so far for avoiding any faith/work conflicts is not to turn up to vote on contentious issues. Such recusal is hardly a long term strategy, and seems, in 80's view, to be more like an avoidance of responsibility. (Also see God's Work? and here is an "unofficial" Opus Dei web site full of interesting information) Update - here is an interesting piece on Kelly's dilemma by Rod Liddle.

Rules For a Happy Crapper - in case you are still as mystified as 80 over the orientation of the toilets in Brixton prison, which has been changed to accommodate the demands of convicted criminals who happen to be Muslims (see Mind Boggling Bog Business), here is an enlightening piece from Ophelia Benson writing in the excellent Butterflies and Wheels. It seems that it is not just the direction faced during a dump that is regulated by religion but much, much more. Prepare to be educated, so that you, too, may be redolent of the odor of sanctity, just like the crooks of Brixton prison.