The View from Number 80

Jones the Faith - oh dear, here is someone else who doesn't understand what a secularist is - in fact the description given in this piece by Tobias Jones fits religionists rather better. A secularist is someone who believes that religion should have no place in government or education. It does not necessarily mean that someone is an atheist or agnostic - there are plenty of "people of faith" who are in favor of the separation of church and state in Britain. Jones, like many others, paints an alarming and wholly imaginary picture of "secular fundamentalists" whose aim is "the eradication of religion, and all believers, from the face of the earth." Having created this straw man to attack Jones then scrabbles around in his grab bag for an insulting adjective for these people - they are "unpleasant". One wonders if Jones has met all secularists before forming this opinion or does he deem everyone that doesn't share his narrow point of view to be "unpleasant".  It is surprising that a national newspaper such as the Guardian is happy to print the kind of arguments that would be unacceptable in a junior school debating society.

As is now becoming standard practise with stroppy religionists Jones takes Richard Dawkins as an example of his imaginary bugbear, the "fundamental secularist". When compared to Jones' ill-thought out ranting style Professor Dawkins, even in his more waspish moments, comes off as the very image of reason and courtesy. Jones reveals himself to be a one trick pony - which may be acceptable if the trick is good, but in this case it comes across as infantile. Rather than examine the religious basis for the current Islamist terrorism he would rather set up another straw man so that he can impress the ignorant. Take this piece of nonsense "Since 2001, lazy intellectuals have been allowed to get away with repeating the nonsense that terrorism and war are the consequences of belief in God. Believers are ridiculed for being, in contrast to the stupendously brainy atheists, very dim." Let's look at the first part of that statement - the young men that flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon did not do it because they were "nihilists and atheists" but because they were devout and fully expected a heavenly reward for their acts of mass murder. Those who set off bombs on the London Underground, in Spain and in Bali were all motivated by their religious beliefs. To deny this, as Jones does, shows that he is  deluded or is indeed "very dim". This is capped off by his peculiar statement that "that Jesus invented secularism". Which of course explains why there are 26 Christian bishops sitting in the the House of Lords.

It is unlikely that Jones will pull his head far enough out of his fundament to understand that the majority of the British population are very distrustful of the effects of religion as shown in a recent poll. They feel like this because they have seen on TV the results of Islamic terrorist atrocities, they have heard a dullard called Bush and a creep called Blair affirm their Christian faith while being complicit in the murder of tens of thousands, and they have endured the ignorant maunderings of the likes of Archbishop Sentamu of York and Jones himself.

No one is calling for churches or mosques to be closed, no one is calling for the persecution of believers (although one can't help feeling some Christians would take a masochistic delight in being persecuted - perhaps they should try missionary work in Saudi Arabia.). The British Airways crucifix case cited by Jones was not about religion but about the wearing of jewelry on a staff uniform - but again what we heard about was "persecution." Jones, Sentamu and all the others can continue with their faith unhindered by anyone - unhindered except when their faith encroaches upon human rights. There is no place for religion in government or the education system (save in the latter, the teaching of comparative religion). Mr Jones, you believe in something for which there exists no evidence, at least not of the kind acceptable in a court of law or a scientific paper, and yet you insist that because of your belief you should be able to dictate to the rest of a largely secular society what is and what is not acceptable. You also expect such beliefs to be adequate justification for exemption from, for example, employment and human rights legislation. Why should that be? As 80 has said before, what makes you think you're special cos' you pray? (also see Idiocy Plumbs New Depths by Politaholic)

Readers' Comments - a few comments from Guardian readers on Tobias Jones' piece. Treat these as an appetizer - there are plenty more. So many in fact one wag, Mujokan, commented "In terms of quality, his piece must have the highest ratio of "comments versus original post" of anything I've ever read on Comment Is Free. There must be some kind of metaphor in this: like the Buddhist image of a lotus growing out of the mud. Maybe it's the most execrable articles that produce the finest comment?"

"What an amazing article - Mr Jones uses the words secular, atheist and nihilistic almost interchangeably, and without seeming to understand what any of them mean." BenKinetics.

"For centuries the religious have enjoyed their power and privileges. It is now being pointed out that their claim to moral authority is vapid and that the basis of this authority, their "holy books" is debatable and contradictory. And they don't like it, hence this hysterical tirade." epeeist

"To sum your article up, Tobias, you object to the fact that atheists (or in your jargon 'secular fundamentalists') have the nerve to speak out when your brand of infantile superstition starts interfering with their lives." Lord Summerisle

Silence of the Moderates - first we had "fundamentalist secularist " and now Giles Fraser, writing in the Guardian, brings us "media atheists". It would appear that the vicar of Putney thinks that the likes of Polly Toynbee by fulminating against religious bigotry is somehow giving aid and succour to the bigots. Fraser's point is that there are many Christians in the UK that do not share the fundamentalist's prejudices and the "media atheists" do them a disservice by lumping all religionists together. He says that, for instance, "Many Christians don't believe homosexuality is a sin. (what about Leviticus?) Far from it. We think it's a gift of God - a means by which many show love and commitment and compassion. This is not an eccentric view within the church. It's also the view of the Archbishop of Canterbury, though, admittedly, he is insufficiently bold in expressing it." "Insufficiently bold in expressing it" gives the game away. Because the more "liberal" Christians are not speaking out enough about attempts to demonize gays that job falls to the "media atheists". I am sure these people would be only to happy to see pieces written by moderate religionists but it doesn't happen - at least nowhere near often enough.

Far from the "media atheists" enabling fundamentalist bigots it is the moderate Christians who are doing so by their comparative silence and by the cover they give to irrational beliefs. As 80 has said before there is a continuum of belief that runs from biblical literalist fundamentalists to the good folks in the local parish congregation. It is their attitude that it is somehow impolite or offensive to question the claims of religion that creates an atmosphere conducive to the loony fringe, who can then cry persecution (how they love that word) if one questions any of the nonsense they spout. Giles Fraser should be addressing his fellow moderates, telling them to make their voices heard instead of whining about "media atheists" who are at least doing something.

In closing Fraser quotes an editorial from the Church Times which says "...broad support for the Equality Act from the Church of England and the Board of Deputies of British Jews has been drowned out by a small group of conservative Christians". How come these moderates were "drowned out by a small group of conservative Christians"? It is obvious that if you are drowned out then you aren't shouting loudly enough. If these Christians want a role model Islam can supply one - Imam Shaheed Satardien. This man is "...is taking a stand against those Muslims in Ireland whom he claims are too sympathetic to Osama bin Laden and the cult of the suicide bomber. At Friday prayers in the sports hall in north-west Dublin, the South African-born former anti-apartheid activist warns his multinational congregation against blaming other religions and the West in general for all Muslims' ills." If this man has the guts to confront the far more dangerous loony wing of Islam why can't the Christian moderates take on their own nutters? (By the way Fraser, by repeating such silliness as "Christianity invented secularism" doesn't exactly do much for his credibility, putting him in the same class as Tobias Jones who recently claimed that Jesus himself invented secularism. See Jones the Faith Also see Guardian readers' response to Fraser)

Devilish Definitions - Absurdity, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary  (Part of an occasional dip into Bierce's masterwork. For more on the man himself see here)

Contrast and Compare - Pope Ratzinger's Christmas homily in which he said "...that the image of the baby Jesus born in a manger should remind everyone of the plight of poor, abused and neglected children." and also fulminated against "materialism" (see Atheism, Some Facts) with this news item about the "Holy See's department store." This temple of Mammon "..is offering some of the biggest savings in town on televisions, jewellery, designer handbags and clothing. But it is also the most exclusive event - it helps to know a cardinal to get in." The place is officially open only to Vatican staff, clergy and diplomats (sod the poor). An Italian newspaper, quoted by the Guardian reveals the bargains available (unless you have taken a vow of poverty or had that state thrust upon you) including "...a leather handbag by Italian firm Coccinelle for £71, compared with £119 in shops a stone's throw away. Ralph Lauren shirts are being snapped up for £42, down from £79." Hypocrisy, thy name is Benedict.

Quote - "...all I want is for religious people to keep their religion out of my face and out of my wallet. I would like to encounter them as human beings, worth liking and respecting for their merits as such, not because they come with a label plastered over them demanding that independently of their human merits I have to treat them with respect and allow them to be bigots and discriminators and gay-bashers and whatever else, just because of the label." A C Grayling, in a comment piece called Cruel faith.

Something for Nothing? - it seems the Guardian has found a great way of generating lots of free content. First, you print a piece that is either totally crass, totally idiotic or totally ignorant and then wait for the comments to roll in. One perfect example of this is the recent Tobias Jones' article (see Jones the Faith) which attracted a huge number of comments, almost all of which were negative. Now the same has happened with a piece by Richard Buggs, Intelligent design is a science, not a faith in which he makes an unconvincing plea for Intelligent Design (ID) to be considered a scientific theory instead of the religious position it truly is.  There is no way that  admitting defeat in the face of ignorance, for that is all ID is, can be scientific. Throwing your hands up in the air when faced with biological complexity and saying "I cannot understand how this came about so I will attribute it to a designer/god" is a pathetic response and totally the opposite of the scientific view "I cannot understand how this came about using current techniques and knowledge but given time and application to the problem I am sure we can learn much more". Which outlook would most people wish their children were taught? As Jones' did before him, Buggs' nonsense receives short shrift from most commentators who were also driven to ask why does the Guardian publish such obvious silliness?  80 said at the beginning of this paragraph perhaps it is way of generating free content. On the evidence of the responses to Jones and Buggs - most of which were better written and better argued than the original pieces - it looks like the Guardian is onto a winner. A bonus effect is the warm feeling engendered in the rational reader upon realizing there are a lot of sensible people out there who know nonsense when they see it and are not afraid of saying so - often with some vehemence. (If there was a Designer he/she/it is either very untidy or he/she/it is not done yet - apparently scaffolding has been left all over the place)

Left Behind - Rob Corddry in his regular (and frequently hilarious) slot on The Daily Show, This Week In God, looks at the Christian video game, Left Behind, that has attracted criticism for its high levels of violence. Naturally this has been denied by those who produced the series of books upon which the game is based. "You may have seen or heard some of the public flap over the Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game. Some have said it is gratuitously violent and has Christian characters targeting gays, Muslims, Jews, devout adherents of other faiths, and even Christians who disagree with Dr. LaHaye and me over various theological issues. This is ridiculous to the point of lunacy and clearly comes from people who have not seen the game and have an obvious agenda. If you have wondered why Dr. LaHaye and I would have anything to do with a game that would target the very individuals we are commanded to love and persuade, you are not alone." In this instance "love and persuade" actually means shoot to death. 80 accepts that Left Behind is not as violent as, say, Grand Theft Auto, but then GTA doesn't pretend to be saving souls with its slaughter. For a gamer's less than enthusiastic review (with screenshots) of how the game plays as well as its controversial elements see What would Jesus Play? Not this Also read this letter by Matt Cherry and reproduced in Humanist Network News. (80 looked at Grand Theft Auto and other games in Shoot To Thrill?)

Pious Puke - here is news of a survey to find the world's worst sound - we are told that "Microphone feedback, crying babies and the scrapes and squeaks of a train on a track ranked second and joint third" but the number one offensive sound was that of vomiting. 80 would like to add yet another category - whining churchmen. It is not enough to have to listen to Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor's demands for Catholic adoption agencies to opt-out of a requirement that gay couples wishing to adopt should be treated no differently than anyone else. O'Connor, you may remember, hit the headlines for moving a known pedophile priest to another parish without actually bothering to tell anyone. To hear this person talking about morality is enough to make 80 vomit. It is repulsive enough that Catholic wannabe Blair is involved - the quote in The Independent that he is "looking for a way through" the current dispute is ridiculous. Discrimination toward people because of their sexual orientation is wrong - and O'Connor's threat that Catholic adoption agencies would rather close, leaving vulnerable children in care rather than treat gays as human beings is a nasty and cruel ploy - and the Reverend Blair is "looking for a way through". What is surprising is that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have come down on the side of the Catholics. This makes a mockery of Giles Frasier's claim last week that "We think (homosexuality is) a gift of God - a means by which many show love and commitment and compassion. This is not an eccentric view within the church. It's also the view of the Archbishop of Canterbury, though, admittedly, he is insufficiently bold in expressing it." York and Canterbury, Williams and Sentamu have shown themselves to be bigots just as much as O'Connor - "insufficiently bold" indeed.

The whole business brings to the public attention once more the question of where Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Community & Local Government, thinks her loyalty lies. As a government minister she should treat all citizens equally but she is also a member of Opus Dei, a Catholic group whose avowed aim is to bring their faith to work. All of her statements and actions should be scrutinized in the light of that dichotomy. When she says an eventual solution would promote "dignity, respect and fairness for all" she is talking nonsense. There is no compromise to be had with people who claim (without a shred of evidence) to be speaking for a supernatural being, a being which, according to their own bible, condones mass murder and yet damns people for their sexual orientation. Can we really be having this discussion in a 21st century Britain with a Labour government? Sadly we are, and it is about time that the majority of people in this country spoke up against the special treatment accorded various groups purely because of their superstitions - we are now a largely secular society and should behave like one. For O'Connor to threaten to shut adoption agencies show that he is more concerned about religious dogma and homophobic prejudice than he is about the welfare of vulnerable children - but then this should come as no surprise given his past record. His comment that such closures would be an " unnecessary tragedy" is cynical, manipulative and deeply hypocritical. The pedophile's friend has added blackmail to his resumé. (see here for Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell's take on the story and here for what Jesus and Mo' make of it)) 

Sites and Sights for Sore Eyes - first up is this great cartoon brought to 80's attention by the National Secular Society's free, weekly newsletter, Newsline which is also available on the web. One item from Newsline and also featured on MediaWatchWatch is news of the failure of the blasphemy case against the BBC brought by messiah wannabe and world class bigot, Stephen Green, of loopy pressure group Christian Voice. Incensed by the Beeb's screening of Jerry Springer: The Opera a couple of years ago, Green has been fundraising and scheming for this fight back against those who do not hold his precious Sky Fairy in high enough regard - only to have Horseferry Magistrate Courts reject his case. Having fallen at the very first hurdle Jesus' little sunbeam has been strangely quiet about this setback....80, meanwhile, whooped with laughter. It was also good to see the true religion of Greece make a comeback although the sight of pagan worshippers praying to Zeus upset a representative of that upstart religion, what was it? Ah, yes, the Orthodox Church. Father Efstathios Kollas, a spokeman for that outfit was less than charitable in his reaction, saying "They are a handful of miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion who wish to return to the monstrous dark delusions of the past." As one worshipper, known only as Artemis said "This is the land which has given birth to freedom and democracy. If we really want to say that we are democratic and we have freedom, then we have to be allowed to practise our religion." By Zeus, she is right.

There was also news of a change in the rules for claiming the James Randi Educational Foundation's Million Dollar Challenge - here is an article from Wired and Randi himself covers it in his free, weekly Swift newsletter. Also covered in Swift and elsewhere is the story of second-rate conjuror Uri Geller who, on an Israeli TV show to find his "successor" (as what, self-publicist?) performed a trick that amateurs manage all the time - only Geller's version was more than amateurish. When making a compass deviate by passing his hands over it sharp-eyed viewers could see that Geller's powers were not supernatural - not unless supernatural means "using a poorly-concealed magnet". A clip of the trick was, as one can imagine, posted on YouTube pretty rapidly only to disappear soon afterwards. Perhaps the famously litigious Geller waved his magic wand...Randi's Swift also has a piece about the inaccurate and in 80's view ghoulish and cruel predictions made by "psychic" harridan Sylvia Browne and the equally despicable James Van Praagh - don't miss it. Also read, courtesy of Pharyngula, about the downfall of creationist and tax evader Kent Hovind, aka Dr Dino. Perhaps they'll put that name on his cell door. Finally should you have an idle hour or so cut along to No Beliefs and check out the many good links there.

Pedophiles, Polygraphs and Poppycock - beleaguered UK Home Office boss John Reid seems ready to shoot himself in the foot again. No, this isn't about crooks lost by the system or overcrowded prisons but about lie detectors or polygraphs. This BBC report tells us that "Paedophiles are to undergo lie detector tests to see if they are likely to reoffend ...Home Secretary John Reid had been seeking an amendment to legislation to approve the first trial of the lie detector tests. It has been seen as an attempt to reassert his authority after two paedophiles were freed from prison." It is unlikely to "reassert" Reid's authority for one simple reason - lie detectors do not work. Even a cursory search on the web would make that obvious but it seems the Home Office didn't bother. 80 wrote about the shortcomings of the device in August 2002 in The Pinocchio Error and pointed out that "The bottom line is that too many sections of society are still enamored of a quick technological fix for problems and the polygraph fits the bill - even if it doesn't work." This seems to be the case here - the Home Office and Reid are perceived as being in a pretty dire state and to appear to do anything to halt this state of affairs would, in their view, be a good thing. it is just a shame polygraphs do not work in any consistent and reliable way. Most famously, is the case of Gary Ridgway, the Green River serial killer. Before finally being caught in 2001 using DNA evidence Ridgway took a polygraph test in 1984 and passed. He went on to kill again. An innocent man was given a test for the crimes back in 1982 and failed. This sort of result hardly engenders confidence in the test. A good page to read about polygraphs is Lies, damned lies and polygraphs which illustrates the shortcomings. So what is Reid up to? Are he and his department unaware of the problems with lie detectors? Or do they know and this is all cynical ploy to appear to be fixing a problem and taking the heat off a bunch of incompetents? Or is it a dangerous game of bluff? The Skeptic's Dictionary entry for polygraph has this to say "In other words, the users of the machine don't really believe it can detect lies, but they know that the people they administer it to think the machine can catch them in a lie." Either way it does not look good and could result in extremely dangerous individuals being released into the community.

Who Is Mr Deity? - let Michael Shermer enlighten you, "Mr Deity is really quite brilliant, funny without being offensive, insightful without trying to be too deep. These short films should be number one at the YouTube box office." These films (see them here) may not be offensive by Shermer's standards as publisher of Skeptic magazine and author of How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God but you can bet there will be many who don't appreciate the humor. It is their loss. Recommended. (The movies can also be dowloaded to your hard drive in Quicktime format, see here)

Holy Smoke - Here is an interesting quote from a Muslim scholar in a news story about a woman who refused to sell cigarettes to a customer claiming her religion forbids it. Asim Mumtaz, president of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association in Cambridge, said: "I don't think there is any basis for refusing to sell cigarettes. Islam, like most religions, is against anything that injures health or the body, but there is no ban on cigarettes or on smoking. The Koran is quite specific about intoxicants, alcohol and other drugs which cause a person to lose control are forbidden, but cigarettes are not forbidden so I am surprised by this." Two points here - if a religion "is against anything that injures health or the body" then this should surely include the inhalation of carcinogenic smoke? It is also hardly surprising that the Quran does not mention cigarettes - it was written hundreds of years before tobacco was introduced to the Old World. If the Quran did mention tobacco or cigarettes those who think that way would perhaps be led to believe that the book was supernaturally prescient, even divinely inspired - but it doesn't and it isn't.

Quote - "The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected." H L Mencken (more from Mencken here and here are his observations of the famous Scopes "monkey" trial)

Putting Things in Perspective - here are a couple of interesting web sites that help us to appreciate that we are not the pinnacle of creation - and neither is this God character the religionists bang on about. Take a look at Powers of 10 which takes us for trip from the very, very large to the very, very small in order of magnitude jumps - not original, but the execution is good. (Here is another take on the idea in The Simpsons.) This is the site's own description "View the Milky Way at 10 million light years from the Earth. Then move through space towards the Earth in successive orders of magnitude until you reach a tall oak tree just outside the buildings of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida. After that, begin to move from the actual size of a leaf into a microscopic world that reveals leaf cell walls, the cell nucleus, chromatin, DNA and finally, into the subatomic universe of electrons and protons." (Java is required) Having managed to get your head around that lot go along to the Godchecker and learn that deities are a dime a dozen - they have more gods here than you can shake a stick at - so what makes yours so special?

Browne Study - do check out James Randi's email newsletter, Swift, this week. In a departure from the regular format there is only one subject - Sylvia Browne, the ghastly "psychic" ghoul who has been doing so very well by duping the gullible for many years. In Swift there is a transcript of one of her nonsensical readings. Force yourself to read at least some of this crap and then wonder how she has the nerve to charge $700. It takes a special kind of person to string along those who are vulnerable with cold reading and hogwash - and Browne isn't even very good at it. As noted by Randi she offers not just the psychic hokum but gives medical advice for money - this is illegal - practising medicine without a license. (see what Quackwatch has to say about her) Does this make Browne a liar and a crook? It is a conclusion hard to deny. Randi also links to a page by Michael Peacock which examines the accuracy of some of the old bat's predictions - needless to say she does not fare well. Also see this on YouTube showing how Browne misleads parents of missing children with her callous, ghoulish yet lucrative drivel. This woman is one nasty piece of work. Update - check out this page from the James Randi Educational Foundation chronicling the unravelling of Silvia Browne, including Larry King with Randi and Rosemary Altea (one assumes that she must be there for "balance" - as a spirit medium - how ridiculous is that?)  on January 26, 2007. Update - see here for some harrassment from the old harridan in an attempt to shut down the Stop Sylvia Browne web site.

A Weasel Speaks - "I have always personally been in favour of the right of gay couples to adopt. Our priority will always be the welfare of the child." Tony Blair, future ex-prime-minister of Britain.

It Is Not Over - until the lame duck quacks. Some papers have prematurely assumed that exemption for Roman Catholic adoption agencies from equal rights legislation is already dead in the water, especially after remarks by cabinet members on the affair. But it is important to remember that the man running the show (at least for a while longer) is not known for listening to his colleagues or the public if he thinks he is doing the right thing. In typical weasel fashion Blair has postponed any decision for the moment while he is trying to "broker a decision". Meanwhile the Catholic church continues to try and apply pressure to the government. This article describes how cabinet ministers have been warned that the church in Scotland will urge voters to reject Labour. The archbishop of Glasgow has apparently "...written to five Scottish Cabinet members - the chancellor, the home secretary, trade secretary Alistair Darling, transport and Scottish secretary Douglas Alexander, and defence secretary Des Browne - repeating his warning to Tony Blair that preventing Catholic agencies from discriminating will be a "betrayal"." And treating fellow human beings unfairly on the grounds of their sexual orientation isn't, presumably. That the Catholics are supported by the Muslim Council of Britain does little for their cause but is a fine example of bandwagon-chasing by that unelected bunch of homophobes. They may view each other as infidels but at least they have their bigotry in common.

As for that woolly-minded waste of space Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury this article shows the depths of the cleric's hypocrisy. Rev Martin Reynolds is "..a gay, in a long-term partnership ... and an ordained clergyman of the Anglican church in Wales. And for the last 15 years, he has been fostering a boy with severe behavioural difficulties." Williams, when archbishop of Wales lived next door to Reynolds' family, "The boy played with his children. He knows that gay couples can provide a loving home for disadvantaged and at-risk children." So why on earth has Williams jumped onto the Catholic's bigoted bandwagon? Reynolds himself says "Rowan must know that the Church of England's own adoption society welcomes gay people. It has done for eight years. In our case we were the first gay couple in Wales to be allowed to foster our boy by Barnardo's. The Catholic church has allowed it elsewhere. Cardinal Levada, who's become the Vatican's doctrinal enforcer, when he was Archbishop of San Francisco allowed at least three children from Catholic agencies to be placed with gay couples."" Williams' backing of the Catholics has done nothing to further ecumenicism but it strikingly revealed the inconsistency of his own position. He has made himself look an utter fool in trying to cosy up to Murphy O'Connor and the rest - according to their beliefs he is a heretic and he is subject to "an obstacle to salvation" for not being a member of the one, true Christian church. The Church of England according to the Vatican is not a proper church and has "defects". One major defect must surely be Williams himself. (For a very different Catholic view of the row see this letter in The Times, also check out cartoonist Steve Bell's If....)

Quote - "The Catholic church must not be permitted to control our legislature through this kind of blackmail. It did the same thing over the faith school quotas proposed last month. If it manages to achieve the same result with these regulations, we need to ask who is running this country - the government or the Vatican?" Terry Sanderson, president National Secular Society.

Greenwashing - is the now popular term for the technique used by those businesses and organizations that wish to appear more concerned with the environment than profit. This article details the way that ExxonMobil, while claiming that it has been "misunderstood" over its attitude to global warming, has "dished out at least $19 million dollars since the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol (1997) to fund an elaborate network including over 75 industry front groups mobilized in a misleading campaign to cloud the public's understanding of global warming. Their objective has been to counter balance the overwhelming scientific evidence of man-induced climate change with pseudo scientific denials to derail reforms that might effect corporate profits." Check out the whole piece which covers political manipulation as well, then when you are simmering nicely, click on over to the BBC business news and read about "Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, has reported the highest-ever annual profit by a US business. Boosted by record global energy prices in the first half of the year, its 2006 net profit totalled $39.5bn (£20bn), a 9% increase on $36.1bn in 2005. Its 2006 revenues rose to $377.6bn, from $286bn a year earlier." Sod the planet and every man, woman and child on its surface, just look at all that lovely money! (for more on ExxonMobil take a look at Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets and also read here how, 18 years after the catastrophic Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, this oh so profitable outfit is still quibbling over damages and compensation.) Update - also read about the American Enterprise Institute, an Exxon funded thinktank which has offered $10,000 each to "scientists and economists or articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)

Good News - well, the lame duck has quacked and there will be no exemption for UK Roman Catholic adoption agencies from equal rights legislation. Blair is quoted thus "I start from a very firm foundation. There is no place in our society for discrimination. "That's why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public-funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination." About bloody time. It is worrying that it ever became an issue. I suppose it is too much to ask Murphy O'Connor to maintain a dignified silence for the forseeable future? No such luck. "We are of course deeply disappointed that no exemption will be granted to our agencies on the grounds of widely held religious conviction and conscience." How is your conscience by the way, Archbishop? Ever think about the altar boys to whom you allowed a known pedophile access? You should have been sacked years ago. This BBC report has the archbigot saying he is resolved to be even more of a pietistic pain in the pulpit in the future, "We believe there is an urgent task to reach a new consensus on how best the public role of religious organisations can be safeguarded and their rights upheld." There certainly is bish, there certainly is. Except for "safeguarded" read "dismantled" and for "their rights upheld" read "everybody's human rights upheld". (see this comment Roman Catholic Church Demonstrates Its Unsuitability for Faith Based Welfare from the National Secular Society)

Castaneda's Claptrap - those of you who can receive BBC 4 TV keep an eye out at 21:00 today, 29th January for Tales from the Jungle which tells the tale of that old fraud/fantasist Carlos Castaneda - in 80's pantheon of fakes he is right up there with T Lobsang Rampa, aka Cyril Hoskin. (the show will be repeated January 20th 02:30 and February 2nd 19:00) Update - having seen the show 80 should really apologize to the memory of Hoskin. It was unfair to lump him with Castaneda, whose cultish activities had a very sinister side the depth of which 80 was previously unaware.

Would You Trust This Man - with the well-being of children? A man who, despite warnings from doctors and therapists that an employee of his, a known pedophile, would offend again, moved this individual to another post with no word of warning to those with whom he would be working? The man in question is Archbishop Cormac Murphy O'Connor who, in 1985 moved a known pedophile priest, Michael Hill, to another parish following a suspension period where he "...went on to indecently assault more altar boys and was jailed in 1997." O'Connor's excuse? "We were not aware at that time of its (pedophilia's) addictive nature and therefore the advice that we were often given by professionals was guarded, was sometimes ambiguous." What utter nonsense. It is a sign of his overweening arrogance that he dares show his face in public and it is a sign of his church's that he has been promoted. Next time you hear him on the radio or see him on the TV talking about Christian morality think of the young boys who were sexually abused by Michael Hill - who was effectively enabled by O'Connor. And this is the man who writes threatening letters to the government about his, and his fellow religionists right to discriminate against gays adopting children. Is this a man whose judgement can be trusted? 80 trusts O'Connor and those like him about as far as he could spit a grand piano.

"...soon after succeeding Cardinal Basil Hume as Archbishop of Westminster in 2000, an incident that had occurred during his time in Arundel and Brighton came back to haunt him and nearly cost him his job.

It emerged that he had failed to act when a priest, Fr Michael Hill, became known to him as a paedophile. Instead of informing the police of the allegations against Hill, he moved him to the chaplaincy at Gatwick Airport where he believed the priest would no longer be a danger to children.

In 1997, however, Hill was convicted of sex attacks against nine children. After serving three years, he was then given another sentence of five years for assaults on three more boys."  from the BBC News Profiles Unit

Just the Facts - here is a report from the Guardian on the court case involving a French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, which re-published the "blasphemous" Mohammed cartoons. The Union of French Islamic Organisations, the World Islamic League and the Grand Mosque of Paris brought the case in an action typical of religionists who insist on their right to be offensive to women or gays but then get themselves all in a lather over some not particularly amusing cartoons. And even they wouldn't have been so upset without some busy shit-stirring by Danish imams. The writer of the short Guardian piece, Kim Willsher, displays a worrying willingness in the last paragraph to parrot Islamist nonsense about the cartoons  that is a) lazy and b) completely inaccurate. "The cartoons were first published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and were later reproduced in other European publications. They provoked violent demonstrations around the world by Muslims who judged them blasphemous and racist." True, the first publication was in Denmark in September 2005, but they were also published in Egypt in October of that same year with no outcry. When Danish radical imams saw no outrage they hawked the cartoons around Muslim countries stoking things up - but just to make sure, they added some more cartoons of their choosing. Of these, unlike the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, at least one was genuinely offensive.

So, it was only after such belated prodding that we saw "spontaneous" rioting and flag-burning on our TV screens. (As 80 wondered at the time, where did these protesters suddenly get hold of so many Danish flags to burn? Perhaps the incendiary imams should be asked whether they hold shares in any flag companies.) The Muslims (surely not all of them?) may well have judged the daubings to be "blasphemous and racist" but there is no reason for Willsher to repeat this without at least some qualification. To draw or publish such a cartoon may be blasphemous, but only for Muslims (including those perhaps that have depicted their prophet over the centuries with no accompanying outcry?). A point often made by Muslims is that Mohammed was a man, not a god like the Christian Jesus. Which leads one to ask, is it blasphemous to draw someone who was merely human, prophet or not? As for the claim, again unchallenged by Willsher, that the cartoons were racist, 80 suggests that a look at the latest cartoon from Jesus and Mo will help clarify matters. To nitpick thus may seem somewhat petty, pulling apart a minor news item, but Willsher's uncritical repetition of errors and distortions deserves to be condemned. If enough reporters and other commentators, through ignorance, laziness, sloppiness or multicultural political correctness repeat this sort of garbage often enough it will become accepted "common knowledge" and another little piece of truth will have been lost.

Raciste? Non! - two comments from the above-mentioned court case. Francis Szpiner, lawyer for the Grand Mosque, contends, "Two of those caricatures make a link between Muslims and Muslim terrorists. That has a name and it's called racism."

Publisher of Charlie Hebdo, Philippe Val counters "It is racist to imagine that they can't understand a joke."

Update - to the above story. "A state attorney Thursday called for the dismissal of a court case brought by French Muslims against a satirical weekly that printed caricatures of the Prophet Mohamed, saying the cartoons denounce terrorists' use of the Muslim faith but do not damage Islam." (AP)

Quote - "True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance." Akhenaten, Pharoah of Egypt, 18th Dynasty, 1352-1336 BC

Whew! That's A Relief - all of us will be resting easier with the knowledge that disgraced preacher Ted Haggard is now "completely heterosexual" - whatever that means. It seems that after 3 weeks of "intensive counselling" this unpleasant piece of human detritus feels he is ready to return to the fold. Haggard's sexuality is entirely his own affair and always was but his lies and attacks on gays while he led a double life shows the depth of his iniquity. As for his "conversion" the New York Times (reg rqd) asked a psychiatrist who is an expert on gender and sexuality for his opinion. Dr Jack Drescher told the paper that "..while it was people’s prerogative to identify their sexual orientation as they wanted, the notion of being able to change that orientation was “not consistent with clinical presentations, but totally consistent with theological belief.”" In other words the opinion of many rabid religionists that homosexuality is a choice and is "reversible" is not true - to put it more bluntly, it is crap and in 80's view one of the cruellest lies peddled by fundamentalist bigots. Haggard should never be ashamed of his sexuality - but he should be forever ashamed of being a despicable liar and a deceitful husband and father. None of this would have mattered a toss if he hadn't been such a bigoted hypocrite in the first place. 80 can't wait to hear of the next religious holier-than-thou windbag to have feet of clay - it won't be long. (Do read this piece by Sarah Posner on the "homosexual agenda". I'll bet you didn't know "..homosexuality cannot be reproduced, because two homosexuals can’t bear children. So they have to recruit people into their organizations." And for another view by Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian, click here)

An Archbishop Speaks - thanks to John Sentamu, archbishop of York for enlightening us all with the following pearl of wisdom. "In a (democratic) country like this to then say: I am going to kidnap somebody, I'm going to kill somebody, I will blow people up - for whatever ideology that is about - it isn't good citizenship." Look out for more dazzling insights from this intellectual giant in the near future.

Whose Digital Rights? - 80 is no particular fan of Apple - the company's projected image of a bunch of hip, artistic, laid-back dudes in contrast with Microsoft's gray-suited corporate tightasses is a clever (and successful) marketing ploy that has little to do with the real world. Apple are as fierce as any other firm in protecting their market - which is why the  music purchased from Apples iTunes will only play on Apple's iPod mp3 player and not anyone else's. You may have forked out your hard-earned money but the product is still Apple's. Two articles appeared recently from a couple of individuals who don't buy into the cult of Mac that were worth a read - in 80's opinion. After all, it is always a pleasure to have one's prejudices confirmed. First up is I hate Macs, an amusing diatribe from Charlie Brooker who writes on TV for the Guardian. He has a lovely line in invective sure to raise the blood temperature of Apple freaks everywhere, as you can see here "I hate Macs. I have always hated Macs. I hate people who use Macs. I even hate people who don't use Macs but sometimes wish they did. Macs are glorified Fisher-Price activity centres for adults; computers for scaredy cats too nervous to learn how proper computers work; computers for people who earnestly believe in feng shui."

The second, serious piece, 'Why I don't believe Steve Jobs' is from Bill Thompson, an independent jounalist and regular commentator on the BBC World Service - and a Mac user. His bugbear is Apple's implementation of Digital Rights Management (DRM) Fairplay, as used in iTunes - or in fact anyone's implementation of DRM. He singles out Apple's boss, Steve Jobs as a target of his ire. In keeping with Apple's public face Jobs has called for all digital music to have no copy protection (what a great guy) while hobbling the music he himself sells with DRM (what a hypocrite). Jobs naturally blames this on the evil record companies. These companies are indeed, for the most part, rapacious bastards but as Thompson points out some of the tracks available from iTunes can be downloaded elsewhere with no hobbling DRM. The two pieces are very different in tone, with Brooker airing his "hatred" of Apple but with his tongue in his cheek, and Thompson taking a serious look at the whole DRM business but focussing on Apple's  role in its implementation. By the way, if you think DRM is just a problem for music download freaks, wait - in a few years time you too will be tearing your hair out when you connect a recorder to your slick new High Definition TV tuner/set top box only to find that the built-in rights management has automatically downgraded the picture to something like VHS quality. Will this misuse of technology hinder, even for a moment, the real video pirates as opposed to home copiers? Don't be silly. (For more on Jobs, Fairplay, copy restriction and the record companies see this Washington Post (reg rqd) article and also this piece from Motley Fool) Update - see this fine article by Cory Doctorow at Salon.com called Steve Jobs' iTunes dance.

True Colors - was John McCain always a vote-chasing hypocrite and 80 was just too dumb to notice? The man who was considered by many liberals to be the (almost) acceptable face of the Republican party is certainly showing his true colors now the presidential race has started. This New York Times (reg rqd) piece notes that he is hiring the very same pond scum he denounced in his failed 2000 presidential bid. In that campaign for the Republican nomination, George W Bush's team used every underhand tactic going against McCain and yet now the Arizona senator has hired 3 of the very men who mounted the ads that, in McCain's own words, were a "distortion of his record". So now he is going to pay them to do some distorting on his behalf.  In the 2004 race he also called the attack mounted by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth against Democratic contender John Kerry “dishonest and dishonorable.” - now he has hired the firm that ran the ads. At one time he had nothing good to say about evangelist bigot Jerry Falwell, calling him an "agent of intolerance". He now appears to have changed his mind and even delivered the commencement address Saturday at Falwell's Liberty University. Now Falwell is as intolerant as ever so what has changed? John McCain scenting the White House, that's what. One other religious nut he has yet to win over is the Focus on Family founder James Dobson, who is record saying that he has prayed "we won't get stuck with him." as president. McCain's reaction to this rebuff is to say he would still like to patch things up with Dobson.

It seems he will play nice with anyone who can deliver the votes - well, not quite. VoteVets.org is an organization of veterans 20,000 strong (including 1000 Iraq and Afghanistan vets) opposed to Bush's "surge" strategy and notable for its bluntness in calling both Bush and Cheney draft dodgers. As a vet himself one would think McCain would at least give them a hearing. In fact he dismissed them as a "handful of veterans" who do not represent the military. Also McCain went to court 18 months or so ago to "try to curtail the influence of a group to which A. Jerrold Perenchio gave $9 million, saying it was trying to "evade and violate" new campaign laws with voter ads ahead of the midterm elections". according to the Washington Post. Now we are told by that paper "As McCain launches his own presidential campaign, however, he is counting on Perenchio, the founder of the Univision Spanish-language media empire, to raise millions of dollars as co-chairman of the Arizona Republican's national finance committee."  For much, much more on how the pull of the Oval Office can destroy a would-be candidate's integrity take a look at The Real McCain - it is not a pretty sight. Update - "Republican presidential candidate John McCain is defending his outreach to conservative Christians, arguing that his effort is not political pandering to win the GOP nomination." see here.

Friends and Heroes and Liars - the BBC plans for a new children's TV show to begin in March, called Friends and Heroes. Set in the Ist century CE "It aims to introduce a new generation, whatever their faith, to the stories of the Old and New Testament.." Which will entail introducing the kids to miracles, saviors and the rest. What a wonderful way to get your propaganda in early, by warping young minds with supernatural silliness. As Richard Dawkins has said, the religious indoctrination of children is tantamount to child abuse. It is certainly abusing the trust that children place in adults to pretend that these bible stories are true. It is a strange mixture - modern computer animation and old fables, but one that has proved very lucrative in movie theaters see Prince of Egypt. Obviously the folks at Friends and Heroes have taken this on board - the animation is in a very similar style to that movie. What a shame they could not have put their talents into producing inspirational tales for children without the supernatural elements. Unlike those in, say, Tolkien's works, the supernatural tales from the bible are presented as having actually happened in the real world. Fantasy stories can be great fun but to tell children such things are actually true is a lie - nothing more and nothing less. No doubt one of the moral lessons imparted in these shows will be to always tell the truth - something the producers of Friends and Heroes have failed to do. (It has been pointed out to 80 that in the interests of fairness and balance other religions should really be featured equally in the series. Naturally this would make the whole thing complicated and unwieldy which only demonstrates what a stupid concept the show is in the first place. Also, the point needs to be made to the BBC that "it was always wrong, as well as outdated, to tell children that they had to believe anything, especially with a threat of punishment actual or implied."  Thanks, Deborah)

Something For The Weekend - here are a few items that in 80's view are well worth a moment or two of your time. The first thing to say though was how well Darwin Day (February 12th) went - no one was trampled to death, people were not whipping themselves or bashing themselves over the head, no one was stoned (no, not that kind of stoned) and no one was beheaded. What is wrong with these people? This piece by Robert Carroll of the excellent Skeptic's Dictionary is on what Darwin means to him - here is a taste of what he says "...I find Darwinism much more relevant for moral progress than any sacred text. Evolutionary biology teaches us that we are a species that has survived and flourished in part because of our social nature and because of our complex emotional system, which includes the ability to sympathize and empathize with other members of our own species and with creatures like us. Evolution favors cooperation and a natural sense of fairness." If you have a relative, friend or acquaintance who thinks you cannot be moral without believing in a supernatural bogeyman try and get them to read what Carroll says - it is unlikely to change their mind, but it is at least worth trying.

The New York Times (reg rqd) has an interesting piece on Carl Sagan which mentions what is effectively a new book from the man, now 10 years dead. Called “The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God” the book is based on a series of lectures that Sagan gave in 1985 on "..exploring the boundary between science and religion." and is edited by Anne Druyan, Sagan's widow and collaborator (read an essay by her here). Dennis Overbye, writer of the NYT piece, closes with a nice quote from Richard Dawkins on how Sagan surpassed those still in thrall to religion. “He left them behind, because he had so much more to be religious about. They have their Bronze Age myths, medieval superstitions and childish wishful thinking. He had the universe.”

80's best laugh of the week gone by was connected to the silly row in the Anglican Communion concerning gay clergy. On BBC Radio 4's News Quiz Francis Wheen (author of How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions) shared his favorite headline generated by the ecclesiastical fracas, "Gay Sex Splits Bishops". Enough said. Read Wheen's 2004 piece on The dimming of the Enlightenment and here are a pair of short essays on Gurus and gibberish and Crystal Balls, Primal Screams from New Humanist. The latter piece looks at the strange world of the Blairs and their fondness for new age codswallop - although it dates from 2003 it is as relevant now as it was then. Regular readers will know of 80's detestation of the Thought for the Day slot in Radio 4's Today show which is given over exclusively to religionists assailing our ears with simplistic and patronising crap. Happily an antidote is available in the form of Peter Hearty's Platitude of the Day which obligingly translates the holy hokum into regular English thereby revealing what shallow nonsense passes for deep religious thought. See here for some secular thoughts for the day and sign up with Think Humanist for more in the future.

Do take a look at Roy Brown's Secularism Under Siege, courtesy of Humanist Network News (HNN) in which he warns of attempts to revive the European Union constitution by Angela Merkel of Germany who appears keen to inject religion, or more specifically Roman Catholic Christianity (her own sect) into the document. Far better is the Vision For Europe's Brussells Declaration, described, "...as a restatement of our common values, the liberal values of individual freedom, democracy and the rule of law on which modern European civilisation is based. They are not the values of a single culture or tradition but are our shared values, the values that enable Europeans of all backgrounds, cultures and traditions to live together in peace and harmony." Now who could argue with that? The creepy old authoritarian in the Vatican for a start. The current version of the Brussells Declaration can be found here in English and links to other language versions are here.

It was a pleasure to read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column, A Menace to Science, on that ghastly television nutritionist and Bad Joke, Gillian "Poo Lady" McKeith and the dissertation that won her mail order doctorate. Goldacre picks up on the woman's abysmal ignorance of science and her childish apeing of what she imagines it to be, for example "..the scholarliness of her work is a thing to behold: she produces lengthy documents that have an air of "referenciness", with nice little superscript numbers, which talk about trials, and studies, and research, and papers ... but when you follow the numbers, and check the references, it's shocking how often they aren't what she claimed them to be in the main body of the text. Or they refer to funny little magazines and books, such as Delicious, Creative Living, Healthy Eating, and my favourite, Spiritual Nutrition and the Rainbow Diet, rather than proper academic journals." It was an added bonus that in the same week McKeith has "voluntarily" stopped calling herself Doctor McKeith after the Advertising Standards Authority "came to the provisional conclusion that the honorific was likely to mislead the public". She stopped voluntarily, it would appear, in order to forestall a full investigation of her academic credentials. A wise decision, perhaps. (You can follow the Poo Lady debate at Goldacre's site - also check out this hilarious song about the "nutritionist")

Following creepy Ted Haggard's miraculous return to wholesome heterosexuality after a mere 3 weeks counselling Mark Morford declares "I'm A Straight Liberal No More - After three weeks of brutal counseling, I'm proud to say I am now, at long last, a sad gay Republican. Praise Jesus!" A miracle indeed. (For Jesus and Mo's take on this see here) To see how Haggard really survived his ordeal check out Idiot Box (scroll down) from HNN's Cathartic Comics. One final thing is a report in the Guardian on the rebuke given to George W Bush by Congress over his Iraq surge/escalation plans. On the president's reaction (or lack of it) was this sentence "There was no immediate comment from Mr Bush following the vote; officials said he had undergone minor surgery to remove two moles on his face." Which is all very well but when are they going to remove the squirrels in his brain?

Peerless PEAR - there have been quite a few reports recently on the closure of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) which has been investigating ESP for nigh on 30 fruitless years. One wonders why it took so long to throw in the towel - oddly enough the same time elapsed before Susan Blackmore came to the conclusion that studying "psi" was a waste of time. But then as far as 80 knows she has never claimed to have found anything significant that couldn't be explained by conventional means. PEAR was different, as it claimed to have found evidence "..that people could alter the behavior of these machines ("random" number generators) very slightly, changing about 2 or 3 flips out of 10,000. PEAR claimed that its results were replicable and genuine - lab founder Robert Jahn has said “If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will.” In fact none of the results are convincing.

One would think that Brenda Dunne, a developmental psychologist and manager of the PEAR lab would have been more than happy to take up the Randi Foundation's Million Dollar Challenge, for two reasons. One, the lab was always cash strapped and ran on private donations so a million would have come in very handy. More important, reason two is that it would have been a major publicity coup, rubbing arch-skeptic Randi's nose in it and taking him for a million. Oddly, when asked about applying for the prize Dunne became as evasive as that old bat Sylvia Browne. Dunne commented "The Randi foundation offers its putative prize for the demonstration of "paranormal" abilities. We are not in the business of demonstrating “paranormal" abilities" So altering an electronically generated sequence of numbers to become higher or lower using only the power of the mind is not "paranormal"? Still, why even quibble about definitions if you can put Randi in the wrong and take his money? It is amazing how the put up or shut up challenge from Randi seems to upset these people so - can it be that, deep down, they realize their claims are hogwash?

It must be very hard indeed to realize that you have wasted years of your time with nothing to show for it. Dunne's answer is to try and rationalize it away. “We submitted our data for review to very good journals, but no one would review it. We have been very open with our data. But how do you get peer review when you don’t have peers?” she told the New York Times (reg rqd). 80 will leave the last word on PEAR to Robert Park, physicist and author of Voodoo Science, “It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton. Science has a substantial amount of credibility, but this is the kind of thing that squanders it.” (For more on PEAR and the Randi challenge see here, here and here.)

Going Green - Chinese fashion. A short piece (with picture) in the Guardian tells us "Villagers in south-western China are scratching their heads over the local government's decision to paint a barren mountainside green, it was reported today. Workers who began spraying the Laoshou mountain last August told nearby residents they were doing so on the orders of the area authorities, but had not been told why. Some villagers believed Fumin county officials were attempting to change the area's feng shui - the ancient Chinese belief of harmonising the physical environment for maximum health and financial benefit." 80, on the other hand, is reminded of Alice in Wonderland and the gardeners who were frantically painting white roses red. "Why the fact is, you see, Miss, this here ought to have been a RED rose-tree, and we put a white one in by mistake; and if the Queen was to find it out, we should all have our heads cut off, you know." The final word comes from a local Chinese official - "This is an order from above," she said. "You should ask the leader from above. I don't have any information on this." Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice might have said. (for more Chinese strangeness see the giant map and the flying aircraft carrier) Update - here is another report also with picture.

Lost In Translation - when US vice-president Dick Cheyney talks of "significant progress" in Iraq most sane people roll their eyes in horror - but what if he is right? It all comes down to where exactly he thinks this progress has occurred. Perhaps those that criticize his remarks are thinking of the huge loss of life, both Iraqi and coalition, or the steadily worsening sectarian civil war? Perhaps they have in mind the destabilization of the whole Middle East, leading to a nuclear arms race between Iran and the more "moderate" states in the region? Perhaps they have in mind the thoughtless destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and civil service? Perhaps they have in mind the shattered lives of a generation of children growing up knowing nothing but war? If so, they are all barking up the wrong tree. What Cheney is referring to is the takeover and plundering of Iraq's oil - which does indeed seem to be showing "significant progress". See this report from The Independent, Future of Iraq: The spoils of war which seems to have been ignored by most mainstream media outlets. We learn that "Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days. The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972....Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise." So that's alright then. The blood and treasure expended is worth it after all - at least for Cheney and his oil-guzzling pals. Update - this now getting wider coverage, see here. More details can be had here and here. The Washington Post has an altogether rosier view of things "Approval of a new oil law could help open the way for international oil companies to invest billions to upgrade Iraq's decrepit wells and pipelines and exploit the country's reserves, among the world's largest. The bill also provides a formula for distributing revenues among all major ethnic and religious groups, easing Sunni fears of being cut out of a future bonanza because their central and western homelands lack extensive reserves." How reassuring. Update - see Iraqi Oil Law Gives Cover for Corporate Profit

It's All Right to Attack a Politician's Religion - is a fine piece from Johann Hari pointing out that when a politician's religious beliefs affect their policies they should be challenged on this. A recent example he cites is Opus Dei cultist and UK government minister Ruth Kelly, who fought for exemption for Catholic adoption agencies from equal rights legislation. Hari makes the valid point that there is no reason why religious beliefs should be subjected to any less scrutiny than any other position taken by politicians. Saying that some form of prejudice is OK because it is a matter of religious "conscience" is just trying to dodge the question. It is when such beliefs are dragged out into the full light of day that they can be seen as the naked bigotry and prejudice they are, hiding behind a threadbare clerical figleaf. To fall back on verses from ancient holy books to justify hateful, unfair practises is a form of cowardice. Those that do so should have the guts to present their case on its merits (if any) without claiming some supernatural authority. Bollocks is still bollocks whether it is in some ancient text or in the mouths of politicians and preachers.

Worth the Wait - it has been a while since Tony Youens updated his Commentary - too long - but he has more than made up for the time with a scathing look at Psychic Private Eyes, yet another TV show featuring "psychics" and their supposed powers. Here is a paragraph from Burying the Truth that should whet your appetite, "Zone Reality’s website claims the programme, “conducts real life psychic investigations into baffling murders and disappearances, using the unique skills of Colin Fry, Tony Stockwell and the remarkable female psychic medium T.J. Higgs.” Just to be pedantic for a moment surely they can’t be ‘unique’ skills if all three possess them, can they? Even a cursory glance at the programme shows they all use exactly the same skill, i.e. cold reading. Well I say cold reading but perhaps a more accurate term would be ‘pseudo-psychic reading’ because how much of what they say is ‘cold’ is open to question. And what exactly is remarkable about Ms Higgs I have yet to discover. Maybe she can juggle hedgehogs." Excellent stuff - and Youens knows exactly what he is talking about - he is no mean cold reader himself - see his piece Psychic Sophistry. However, as he points out, in shows like this there is no control over what the "psychics" have been told beforehand - but it is hilarious when they have been fed the wrong information - see his article Most Haunted Live - Asylumgate. If you want to learn more about the above-mentioned Colin Fry, check out Youens' devastating evaluation of this "medium".  Also, as a one time (token) skeptic on various TV shows, Youens tells us in Media Circus exactly why he is no longer prepared to play this pointless game.

Numerological Nonsense - here's a silly story about how a new outfit, Brussels Airlines, had to change the company logo emblazoned on their planes. The symbol, a stylized "B", was made out of - shock, horror, 13 dots. This was enough apparently to trigger a flood of "disapproving emails and calls" saying that the symbol would bring bad luck. Now designer Ronane Hoet has had to add another dot to placate these nitwits. The obvious point to make here is how depressing it is that triskaidekaphobia apparently abounds in the 21st century, but a second point could be made that surely the firm should have carried out some market research before putting brush to plane? As this Guardian piece observes " ..superstition remains firmly ensconced in modern society. Try looking for a 13th floor in some countries, or a 13th row on some planes.." Brussels Airlines do seem to have learned something from this silliness - they opted to add a dot rather than subtract one as the number 12 would suggest the 12 disciples (which brings us to another whole area of superstition). Happily the service will not be flying to the Far East as the Guardian knowledgeably tells us "...in Mandarin, 14 sounds like the phrase "to want to die"". Yeah right - and 80 sounds like the phrase "infidel skeptic".