AB ABSURDO

The View from Number 80 is an occasional newsletter or ezine. Occasional in that 80 is constitutionally incapable of writing to a deadline.The subject matter is the huge number of websites that now exist. Whilst the only consistent criterion for inclusion is whether a site catches 80's somewhat fickle attention there is a definite emphasis on sites that tread, and often stray over, the border into pseudoscience, flim-flam or irrational claims. It is the nature of the web that these sites are out there in abundance. Number 80 tries to give them critical attention and, in many cases, a certain amount of ridicule. It is 80's contention that "we live in a fascinating, beautiful and, let's face it, dangerous enough universe without complicating matters with gobbledegook." Other sites (and subjects) of many kinds are included, sufficiently diverse to defy categorization.

Past Views are archived in the sidebar - if you scroll further down there are many links you may wish to check out. Also please take a moment to click on the charity buttons to make a free contribution to worthwhile causes.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE VIEW FROM NUMBER HAS MOVED TO A NEW HOME. YOU CAN NOW FIND 80'S MAUNDERINGS AT http://www.number80.co.uk/

 Please update your bookmarks and links and let anyone know who you think would be interested. For a while some internal links will point back to the old site - these will be updated as soon as possible. Hopefully you should be automatically directed to the new address.

Glance is a look at current news and items of interest on the web, the aim being for a shorter response time than the View. Some items are updated as a story develops, so it can be worthwhile scrolling down the page to see what's happened. The Glance is archived in the sidebar.

If you have arrived here via a search engine and do not see the item you seek, check the Glance archive in the left margin, as this page is updated frequently.

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.

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?)

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".)

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.

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."

Uniformly Stroppy - Shabina Begum seems very pleased with herself for making a fuss over whether she should wear a generally-accepted school uniform or what amounts to a ground-length hat. "I'm just a teenager - not many teenagers go out there and challenge the system." Which system would that be? The system that ensured the type of uniform worn by Muslim pupils at her school was expressly agreed between religious authorities and the school? This arrangement suited everyone apparently except Begum who thinks her teenage interpretation of the rules governing women's dress trumps everyone else's. She says that the shalwar kameeze (tunic and trousers), which Denbigh High School allows Muslim pupils to wear, "did not satisfy Islamic dress". (That, by the way, is no more than her personal opinion - within Islam codes of dress vary wildly and are more cultural than religious.) Happily the judges at the House of Lords did not agree with her. When this storm in a teacup first appeared 80 wondered where Miss Begum got her ideas from and didn't have to look very far. Her brother and another man, mentioned in 80's original piece (see No Thanks) with connections to Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist group, would seem to have had great influence with Begum. We are now told that she is considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. 80 wonders how much this ridiculous case has cost so far and whether any amount of money spent on one stroppy girl's refusal to wear school uniform can be justified. (Read Boris Johnson's take on the whole affair here.)

March for Free Expression - A Rally in Trafalgar Square, London, will be held between 2:00pm and 4:00pm on Saturday March 25th 2006. For details check out this page. In the wake of the cartoons row and the supine behavior of the current government this rally could not be more timely. Also please sign the online Freedom of Expression petition. "The joint organisers of this campaign, though of very different political opinions (libertarian and socialist respectively), are united in their desire to be able to debate and disagree without anyone getting killed or imprisoned." Too bloody right - Freedom of Expression - use it or lose it. Latest news - Jesus and Mo will be attending - although not it seems, with the best of intentions. Update - see Hundreds Join Free Speech Rally.

A Very Bright Idea - Worried about the Blair government's promotion of "faith" schools? Concerned that children's education is being blighted by superstition? Worried that such schools can have a divisive effect on the community? Then why not do something about it? 80 received an email from the UK Brights regarding the propagation of state-funded religious schools. It makes the suggestion that "faith" schools (the government term) would be more accurately described as "sect" schools. (This usage 80 is happy to adopt, but with one alteration - "sectarian" schools is easier to say and less likely to be misheard.) This suggestion of a name change is but one of three made in an online petition. It also "...calls for amendments to the Education Bill to prevent the further proliferation of sect schools in the UK" and "calls for an end to state-funded education which is controlled by any religious group or affiliated with any religious beliefs". It is pointed out that these submissions "are about achieving civic parity for under-represented views and minority faiths, and the reasserting of children's freedom of and from religious belief." If you agree with this then please sign the "Faith Schools are Sect Schools" online petition. (See here for more about the Brights. There is also a permanent link in the sidebar of this page)

Outnumbered - here is a nice piece from MediaWatchWatch with pictures of the night that supporters of Jerry Springer the Opera outnumbered the religionists outside the Opera House in Manchester. The supporters employed a devastating weapon unavailable to the killjoys - a sense of humor. Great stuff.

The Framers and the Faithful - is an article in Washington Monthly by Steven Waldman (of Belief.net) that looks at the US constitution, a document appealed to both by those in favor of church state separation and those that consider the US is a Christian country. The truth, as one might imagine, is far from clear cut but one fascinating piece of information is revealed. One of the strongest lobby groups at the time for the state having no role in religion was  the evangelical Christians, who had suffered at the hands of state-endorsed religions and fervently wished for an end to the practice. Waldman contrasts this with the attitude of these evangelicals' modern day descendants whose stance is exactly the opposite. Waldman has done a good job in showing the complex history of the argument over established religion and also illustrates how the Constitution and the founders' intentions are open to widely differing interpretations. One fact is certain though and that is the Constitution makes no mention of God and the only reference to religion is the prohibition on it being used as a test for public office.

Spaceballs - 80 was surprised to read of a top secret air-launched US spaceplane which featured in an article in the respected magazine Aviation Week and Space Technology by William B Scott. Scott claimed the project, Blackstar, was now shelved but "..may have been declared operational during the 1990s." The surprise was that such an operation involving a large supersonic carrier airplane and a smaller spaceplane capable of orbital and sub-orbital operations could be kept secret for any length of time. As the old adage goes, only two people can keep a secret and even then only if one of them is dead. For an old space cadet like 80 this Blackstar seemed too good to be true, but a trusted publication such as Aviation Week wouldn't publish hogwash, would they? Dwayne A Day writing in The Space Review (Six blind men in a zoo: Aviation Week’s mythical Blackstar) certainly seems to think so and supplies some very convincing reasons.

It would appear that Scott, the author of the Blackstar piece, has a track record of dodgy articles. Since 1990 he has been writing about top secret planes which have never been substantiated, such as the TR-3A Black Manta. Day analyzes the ".. pattern that Scott repeats in all of his black airplane stories. Usually there is a small bit of real information about a classified aircraft project. Scott then connects alleged sightings of an unusual aircraft in flight to this bit of information. Then the article is padded out with a large amount of speculation, usually involving various studies and research projects conducted by various contractors. The characteristics are always the same, however: he never quotes anybody by name who has any direct connection to the alleged program, and he never even includes anonymous quotes of anybody who supposedly knows the big picture about the alleged program. All of the anonymous quotes of people who are supposedly involved are always clearly low-level worker bees who do not know what they are working on." This is reminiscent of the style adopted by those who write about, say, the Bermuda Triangle or UFOs. Just what this kind of fairy tale is doing in the pages of Aviation Week is a puzzle. Perhaps the editors let their wish to believe overwhelm their good sense, it certainly wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened. (Read here about the Journal of Reproductive Medicine's publication of a thoroughly flawed prayer study. Not that 80 is implying Aviation Week should be held to the standards of a peer-reviewed journal.) Day's detailed analysis and rejection of the Blackstar story is well worth reading as a primer on how to approach such extraordinary claims, whatever the source. (80 has mentioned The Space Review and Dwayne A Day before - read We never went to the Moon (No, really.) The Space Review is available by email, a form is available on every page, and is highly recommended.)

Idiots of the Lost Ark - every now and again a story surfaces about some mythical Biblical artifact being sought by enthusiasts (to call these people archaeologists would be a lie). Most recently, we are told, the resting place of Noah's Ark is hinted at in satellite imagery. This combination of high-tech and lowbrow is always interesting to observe - if only to marvel at the seeming ability of one person's mind to simultaneously encompass modern technology and primitive legend - and accord them equal verisimilitude. This feat of compartmentalization of thought is beyond 80's limited abilities so the Holy Grail, Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant will forever remain beyond his grasp. Thanks to the excellent Explorator newsletter 80 has been reading of an early and little known pre-First World War excavation beneath the Temple Mount in Jerusalem which has all the features of an adventure movie. A Finnish scholar, Valter H. Juvelius, became convinced he could find the Ark by deciphering clues in the Book of Ezekiel (which is also popular with some ufologists) and managed to convince a group of English aristocrats to fund an exhibition. Much uneventful digging was done following the Ezekiel clues when one of the expedition decided to cut to the chase. He bribed an official to allow him and others, disguised as locals, to dig by night in Solomon's Stables, under the Mount. Unfortunately another official was not in on the deal and, on hearing noises in the night, raised the alarm which led to the diggers' flight. Later it was suggested that a disgruntled expedition member had instigated matters. Rumours began to circulate that yes, the illegal excavators had fled, but that they had the Ark and other artifacts with them. The whole story can be found here thanks to Philip Coppens whose web site is full of archaeological/historical mysteries and conspiracies of the dodgy kind. Coppens' own comment on the story as written later by Juvelius is that the account "..has got both the hallmarks of a group of idiots that tried to recover the Ark and failed miserably – and of a group of idiots that tried to recover the Ark or other treasures and succeeded – but forever after had to deny everything. Both possibilities remain, though the latter is on balance extremely unlikely." Extremely unlikely hardly covers it. For real archaeology (as opposed to biblically-inspired treasure hunting) see Doug's Archaeology Site which is also great for articles scrutinizing the pseudo-archaeology/history popularized by fantasists such as Graham Hancock (see Don't Mention Atlantis). One set of biblical artifacts 80 would dearly like to see recovered are the Golden Emerods - see Preparation YHWH for this astounding and somewhat uncomfortable tale.

He Said, He Said - as the current US administration has little in the way of an effective opposition that role appears to have been taken by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show. This satirical news ran a couple of film clips - the first is of President Bush accusing his latest target Iran of supplying components for Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) used by "insurgents" in Iraq. The second is of General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff unequivocally stating that is no proof for Bush's assertion. Happily Crooks and Liars have made both clips available online so that that you can see for yourself joined-up government in action.

Randi's Stand-Ins - are of high caliber. For the last few weeks following James Randi's heart operation his Swift weekly Commentary has had several guest contributors including Phil Plait and Michael Shermer. This week it is the turn of Robert Carroll, creator of the essential Skeptic's Dictionary, who looks at bearded bullshitter and quack Andrew Weil, of integrative medicine fame.. So, until Randi is well enough to take the helm again, read what Carroll has to say - if you need to read more of Swift check out the archive. A link to the latest issue of Swift is always in the sidebar of this page. (Also read  Paul Lee over at his Quack-Files site about Andrew Weil's Non Science-Based "Medicine". While you are there check out Confessions of a Quackbuster and read Dr Harriet Hall's fine review of Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis by James L. Oschman.)

Psychic Jinx - here is a fun little item from UK tabloid The Sun detailing how faux psychic (is there any other kind?) Uri Geller is the kiss of death to any team or individual sports person he "helps". To Geller, judging from past performance, any publicity is good publicity so this parade of failure won't faze him one bit. Pity.

Yet Another - heartwarming story from the Onion.

What Controversy? - take a look at the latest entry in Tony Youens' Commentary about the despicable attempt to sneak religion into the UK school science curriculum using the same mealy-mouthed crap advanced in the US of "teaching the controversy" over evolution. Teaching children creationism/Intelligent Design and pretending that this is only being fair and balanced is complete and utter hogwash. Read this piece from Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, Why evolution has no 'other side', on the deceit involved in this apparently oh so reasonable attempt to "teach both sides". Supernatural "explanations" of how the world and its biosphere came to be should be examined in a philosophy/critical thinking class and should not, in any circumstances, be allowed to adulterate science lessons. (Also see Smirking Hypocrite, Rational Lib Dems.)

Scientology Balls - Isaac Hayes, the actor and musician who voices the character of Chef (of Salty Chocolate Balls fame) in the animated TV show South Park has decided to quit. His reason? The show treats religion with "inappropriate ridicule". Furthermore he feels "There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs ... begins." It seems that moment has come for Hayes after many years of the show mocking Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism. So why now? A recent target of South Park's withering fire has been the sinister, yet clownish cult of Scientology (see the show here) and guess what? Yup, Hayes is a devotee of that psychiatry-hating, secretive, litigious piece of cod science fiction masquerading as a religion. Let's face it, all religions are daft but in the Daftness Hall of Fame L Ron Hubbard's ridiculous nonsense has a special place. Hayes, as a Scientologist, is in the company of such mental giants as the tiny but perfectly formed Tom Cruise and John "Battlefield Earth" Travolta. Perhaps now he will have the time to become "clear" and astound us with his mental acuity. Don't hold your breath - just look at Cruise's increasingly bizarre behavior. If readers feel that 80 is overly harsh about Hubbard's cult bear in mind it can kill people - read the story of Lisa McPherson which amply demonstrates the sinister side of this bunch. For the clownish aspect see this picture of Hubbard dianetically auditing a tomato. Read the true story of the "great man", as opposed to his absurd fantasies, online in Bare-Faced Messiah. For more from 80 on Scientology see Hubbard's Bare Cupboard. Courtesy of Wired here is Scientology in a nutshell - with the emphasis on nut. "Hubbard's secret scriptures teach that 75 million years ago, an evil galactic overlord named Xenu solved the galaxy's overpopulation problem by freezing excess people and transporting the bodies to Teegeeack, now called Earth. After the hapless travelers were defrosted, they were chained to volcanoes that were blown up by hydrogen bombs -- and their disembodied spirits continue to haunt mankind today." What a CLOOB. Isaac Hayes has it wrong - it is impossible to treat this drivel with "inappropriate ridicule".

Cherchez la Femme - Dan Brown seems to be using a novel defence in the court case over whether he lifted material from the pseudohistorical The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail for his novel The Da Vinci Code. The strategy is to claim that Brown is too dumb to have researched the material and is even having trouble following the arguments in the case. The Guardian tells us "He found much of the questioning baffling, and said so. "I am trying very hard to understand what you are asking me," he said cheerfully to Baigent and Leigh's QC, Jonathan Rayner James, "but I just can't."" 80 is not sure whether you can avoid the verdict going against you by claiming to be too dumb to sue, but Brown apparently thinks so. It seems Brown's wife, Blythe, does all the research and he, the harmless drudge, just hammers out the deathless prose. Blythe Brown, handily enough, is not in court and will not be giving evidence. Continuing the dumb theme Brown said of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail that he found it so "extremely detailed and hard to read" he still has not been able to read it in full. So, let's see if we have this straight - a best selling novelist claims he is too dumb to follow court arguments, that he has never managed to read the entirety of the book he has been accused of plagiarizing, and besides, his wife did all the the work for him anyway. How can a court do anything but feel overwhelming sympathy for this dysfunctional, mentally-challenged multi-millionaire author and find him not guilty of violating copyright? 80's advice is to put a warrant out for his missus - she is obviously the mastermind here. (also see Holy Hoaxes)

Voice of Reason - and a fair amount of anger and frustration. Do take a couple of minutes to watch this video clip (broadband required) of Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychologist and secularist debating Islamic teachings and terrorism with an Algerian professor of religious politics, Ahmad bin Muhammad. To be honest, perhaps debate is the wrong word as the cleric only manages one reply in the clip - and that is totally irrelevent. Highly recommended. (Here is a partial transcript containing different material from the video indicating that the original debate must have been much longer - and with much more input from bin Muhammad.  And here is a transcript of the video clip.) Update - here is a piece from the New York Times (reg rqd) about Dr Sultan, her life story and the attention she has attracted, including the inevitable death threats from fanatics. 

Face Forerunner - a while back, in July 2000, 80 looked at the so-called Face on Mars (Aliens about Face) which is a rocky outcrop in the Cydonia region of the Red Planet. Early images taken in July 1976 from a Viking orbiter were indistinct enough for those with pareidolia/overactive imaginations to perceive a giant humanoid face, staring into space. One individual who took this idea and ran with it was Richard Hoagland, who has a large, garish web site devoted to wacky conspiracy theories and various breathless and sensational misinterpretations of blurred and over-magnified images from around the Solar System, which make the place look like an alien junkyard. He may have started off with the Face on Mars but where did that idea originally come from? This page (which is slow to load but well worth the wait) shows images from a September 1958  comic book featuring a story called - The Face on Mars! The artwork by the great Jack Kirby is uncannily similar to sketches and impressions produced by Face fanatics. Is this the original? One of the best places to read about the Face and Richard Hoagland is The Face Behind the "Face" on Mars: A Skeptical Look at Richard C. Hoagland by Gary Posner.

Ask an Axolotl - what is the solution for the Roman Catholic church as medicine advances and fewer and fewer healing miracles can be validated? You redefine a miracle of course - it's as easy as, well, as banishing limbo - it's all hocus-pocus anyway. This seems to be the thinking of the authorities overseeing the shrine at Lourdes in France which have proposed a new category of miracle dubbed here "miracle lite". "Bishop Jacques Perrier proposes a new category of "authentic healings", so those that recover can share the story of their physical and spiritual experiences with others." This has proven necessary as the conditions deemed incurable by modern medicine are dwindling. (80 is reminded of that pathetic figure, the God of the Gaps, shrinking like the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz.) We are told that "Of the millions who visit the Pyrenean place of pilgrimage each year, some 7,000 have claimed to have been cured since the medical bureau began keeping records in 1883 - only 66 are deemed miracles." Which is a pretty poor success rate by anyone's standards. So this move is really to extend some kind of category of "skimmed miracle" to make the figures look better. Even among those 66 that the church claimed as full-blown miracles 80 is willing to bet there were no amputees. It seems that when it comes to limb regeneration almighty God could learn a lot from the humble axolotl.

Loss of Faith - according to Terry Jones, writing in the Guardian, God has lost faith in Tony Blair. The old boy is far from alone. "The archangel reported that the Almighty has become increasingly irritated with the vogue for politicians to claim that He is behind their policies - especially if these involve killing large numbers of humans."

Baby Bunting's Back - here is a piece by Madeleine Bunting in the Guardian called "Behind the baby gap lies a culture of contempt for parenthood", which is sub-headed "In a society that values consumption, choice and independence above all, it's a wonder that we have as many babies as we do." It would appear Bunting is in a tizz again, this time over how "how the birth rate is falling below replenishment levels." She blames a new bias for which she has coined a name - anti-natalism (not the best of neologisms - it sounds too much like antenatal). And where does this bias originate? In our dreadful capitalist consumer culture it seems. A couple of observations can be made here - perhaps the lower birth rate is because people are better informed than ever before about the dangers of the world and its uncertain future - with the rise of religious fundamentalism, the effects of global climate change, depletion of natural resources and worldwide pollution maybe it is only the ignorant (or the religious) that are intentionally breeding? The main culprit Bunting fingers, our consumer culture, manipulated by advertising, seems much less likely. Large corporations are not generally run by fools - at least not where the all important bottom line is concerned. Surely to discourage people from breeding, no matter how indirectly, would be counterproductive - where else is the next generation of consumers to come from? Anyone who has experienced the onslaught of TV ads aimed at kids from toddlers upwards knows how the big boys value the nag factor to move their product, and help our little darlings onto the first rung of the consumerist ladder. Pessimism, not consumerism is a much more likely cause of the baby gap. A far more legitimate worry is the relatively high birth rate of religionists and the effect this could have on the future of democracy - they do not need to win any intellectual arguments, they just need to outbreed the rest of us. Then they can make their own laws....To quote H G Wells "History is a race between education and catastrophe." (So long as it is a secular education - see below)

Smirking Hypocrite, Rational Lib Dems - Parliamentary democracy is often a messy, unpleasant, inefficient business but still a necessary way of running a country. To quote Winston Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." According to the questionnaire at Political Compass, 80's politics are one with that strange beast, the left-wing libertarian - which sounds like a contradiction in terms. What the label does indicate is dissatisfaction with the status quo, particularly with regard to the "first past the post" system of elections as used currently in the UK, which does a poor job of reflecting the range of opinion across the country. This is coupled with a great deal of cynicism regarding the motives of most  politicians. It is also the case that no matter how objective one tries to be, often one's opinions are shaped by emotional and other factors, or, as in this case, a smirk. The reason for this preamble is a short clip that featured in a UK Channel 4 show, Dispatches: The New Fundamentalists (of which more below). A sequence showed Liberal Democrat MP, Jenny Tonge, asking Tony Blair in the House of Commons if he was aware that creationism was being taught in the schools run by Christian millionaire Peter Vardy, (which are in fact largely financed by the British taxpayer). Blair's answer was typically evasive crap about "diversity" and that the schools' standards authority, OFSTED, had found no fault. That this came immediately after a segment that showed just such a travesty of education was being applied in Vardy's schools did Blair no favors, but what 80 found particularly irritating was the supercilious smirk on the Prime Minister's face. He not only failed to answer the question adequately, but his manner was offensively dismissive. He seemed to find nothing wrong with filling kids' heads with ancient mythology presented as fact by "teachers". And he smirked.

The attitude of Blair's cabinet members, particularly that of the supine Jack Straw over the recent Mohammed cartoons row, is to show extreme deference to those with supernatural beliefs and remarkably little support for freedom of expression. Contrast this with statements made recently by Liberal Democrats who seem, unlike "New Labour" to have a grasp of the danger posed to an open society by overzealous and often violent and threatening religionists. Kishwer Falkner, a Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, herself a Muslim, said that her co-religionists should have "broader shoulders" on issues of free speech and that such freedom was a necessary condition of living in a pluralistic society. She also said, quite rightly, that the UK blasphemy laws, which only protect the Christain faith, should be repealed in order to be consistent. The same party's human rights spokesman, Evan Harris, said "If you don't want to read The Satanic Verses don't buy the book. If you don't want to watch Jerry Springer the Opera on the BBC switch channels." 80 can only compare such sane and reasonable responses on the clash of modern society and religious belief with that damned smirk on Blair's face. The comparison is less than flattering. This Christian leader has not only led his country into a disastrous war, but is now actively engaged in trashing the public education system by encouraging the likes of Vardy and Edmiston and pushing for more "faith" schools. (also see Vardy's Vacuity)

Dispatches - The show referred to above, Dispatches: The New Fundamentalists, will be repeated on Channel 4 on Thursday morning at 4am and also on More4 on Saturday. Rod Liddle, journalist and one time editor of BBC Radio 4's Today program, takes a look at the growing influence of Evangelical Christians on freedom of speech and education particularly groups such as Christian Voice and its messiah Stephen Green, a semi-articulate bigot, and his vendetta against Jerry Springer:The Opera. Liddle also examines the near useless promotion of sexual abstinence to teenagers, the lies told about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases, and inquires into the academies run by fundamentalist Christians, examining not only the teaching of creationism and homophobia but also the draconian system of discipline and punishment. (A group of parents tells of children not being allowed to use the toilets, including young girls having their periods.) Liddle  also tackles the high levels of expulsion in these schools, suggesting they are a ploy to improve performance on OSTED league teables. This is all shocking and unpleasant to many people, including Liddle himself, who in one scene is utterfully dumbfounded by the wilful ignorance of the man running several of these academies, Nigel McQuoid (see Pious Deceit). If McQuoid wishes to believe in primitive nonsense he is, of course, entitled to do so, but to poison young impressionable minds with his claptrap is unforgivable. Don't miss this show - it is a much-needed wake up call about the dangers posed by these zealots and, in the case of the academies, how they have been indulged by Blair's government. (Also see here a British Humanist Association press release which refers to the Dispatches show)

An Announcement - from the Department of the Bleeding Obvious. "A report by the Social Market Foundation (SMF), an independent research group, has accused the UK media of sensationalising science. It says irresponsible reporting can undermine public confidence in science and government, and on issues such as vaccination may even cost lives." To many people this is not news but an everyday scandal. Most reporting of science in the UK press is pretty abysmal, operating on the level of "what have these strange boffins come up with now?" and frequently confusing science with technology. When it isn't being offensively condescending it is being dangerous and downright misleading, the most obvious culprit here being the tabloid Daily Mail, which appears obsessed with unsubstantiated claims that the MMR vaccine is a cause of autism. Ann Rossiter, director of the SMF is reported here as saying "Such misreporting can have fatal consequences: in 1998, the Daily Mail devoted some 700 stories to MMR creating the erroneous impression that the vaccine was dangerous. Following this, the number of people being inoculated against MMR fell by 20%, increasing the danger of these life-threatening diseases."

Commenting on the report, Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris said "In public policy today there is nothing less than a war going on between the forces of science and rationality on the one hand and those of anti-science on the other, and the media is the main battleground. The misleading portrayal of risk and of the nature of scientific evidence and method in newspapers, as well as the politicisation - by all parties - of what are essentially scientific issues, are major barriers to public understanding of the risks and benefits of new technologies." This is not to say that all UK science reporting is poor - there are some honorable exceptions such as Roger Highfield, science editor of the Daily Telegraph and Ben Goldacre with his excellent Bad Science column in the Guardian (linked in 80's sidebar). A good source of current science news on the web and in print is New Scientist magazine. Two BBC Radio 4 shows merit a mention, Quentin Cooper's Material World and Geoff Watts' Leading Edge. For those who cannot receive BBC Radio the shows are archived for a week after transmission. Just click on "Listen Again" on the two pages linked above. (Also check out ABC Radio National in Australia for Robyn Williams' The Science Show. This is archived for online listening or can be downloaded in MP3 format.) The big question is will this report make any difference to the way tabloids like the Daily Mail present science? You have got to be kidding - scaremongering and sensationalism may be thoroughly irresponsible but  it boosts circulation. 80's recommended use for such newspapers is as a blotter beneath incontinent puppies. At least there they may do some good.

No Carrot, No Stick - here is news on a possible genetic basis for altruism. Researchers in Germany have found, according to a BBC report, that "Infants as young as 18 months show altruistic behaviour, suggesting humans have a natural tendency to be helpful..". The same goes for our cousins, the chimps and it is suggested such helpful behavior originated with our common ancestor, around 6 million years ago. This information should make an interesting talking point with the next clod who insists morality is imposed from without, by a deity. It has long incensed 80 that religionists arrogantly claim the moral high ground and tell you that without threats (hell) and rewards (heaven) from a supernatural being we would all be murdering, thieving rapists. This absurd and offensive belief is behind the negative connotations accorded to the term atheist, particularly in superstition-riddled societies.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." former President George H. W. Bush, August 27, 1987.

A Memo from the Vatican - Paul Rudnick, writing in the New Yorker, has kindly made available a memo sent by Pope Ratzinger to all his seminaries. The text goes "The following questionnaire should be used to help identify and root out such truly committed homosexuals." Bloody hilarious.

Inappropriate Venue - is 80 alone in finding it bizarre that the memorial service for much-loved comic actor Ronnie Barker was held in Westminster Abbey? Barker was not a believer and he had a humanist funeral, so why should his memorial service be held in a church, accompanied by the mumbo-jumbo of hymns and bible readings? That some of Barker's own material was also used seems to Mark Lawson, writing in the Guardian, to make the whole farrago acceptable. It does not. If the man did not believe in supernatural claptrap while alive the decision to hold his memorial in a church, even a grand one like Westminster Abbey, is, in 80's view, insulting and arrogant.

Condemned - out of his own mouth. The British prime minister, Tony Blair, makes decisions based upon his superstitious beliefs. While some might say this is not news it serves to confirm what many people had assumed. The disclosure was made in conversation with Michael Parkinson, in a talk show to be aired this evening. Surely not even the most rabid religionist wants a country run on one man's interpretation of what God wants, yet Blair took Britain into a disastrous invasion with the loss of many lives, Iraqi and coalition, influenced by his Christian faith. The place where Blair should be judged for his reckless and idiotic decision to go to war is here and now by parliament and the people and not in a putative afterlife by some sky fairy. Even believers find Blair hard to stomach - Reg Keys, whose son Tom was killed in Iraq, said "President Bush made comments like this about how God told him to go to war. God and religion has nothing to do with this war. This is nothing to do with God. He is using God as a get-out for total strategic failure and I find it abhorrent."

Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament and honorary associate of the National Secular Society, Dr Evan Harris, said "Our political system relies on decisions being made by accountable and elected politicians, not by their, or anyone else's, Gods. It is a bizarre and shocking revelation that the Prime Minister claims to have been guided by the supernatural in this matter, especially given the particular religious sensitivities in the Middle East. Politicians should avoid references to deity in their public life. We don't want Bush or Khomeini-type fundamentalism in our politics" The worrying thing is that, if things proceed as currently planned, when god-botherer Blair leaves his post the man stepping into his shoes, Gordon Brown, is, you've guessed it, another god-botherer. If ever there was a need for a proper leadership election based upon performance and ability, not faith and superstition, this is it. This BBC report by Nick Assinder discusses Blair's disclosure and in doing so reveals an irritating bias. Referring to the British public's attitude to religious politicos it states "...there are many positives for a leader who has a moral code." How many times does it have to be said that a person can be moral without following any religion? "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not bear false witness" do not seem to have sunk in very far with Blair, or his pal Bush. Those who are moral without needing the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell are far more worthwhile human beings than any number of Blairs and Bushes. (It looks like Blair may face legal action over his remarks)

Bart, Homer and the First Amendment - this BBC story tells of a worrying ignorance among the US populace concerning their Constitution. "Americans know more about The Simpsons TV show than the US Constitution's First Amendment, an opinion poll says. Only one in four could name more than one of the five freedoms it upholds but more than half could name at least two members of the cartoon family." In 80's view if you don't use it you lose it, but if you don't even know you have it in the first place, then you may well have already lost it.

Linda Smith - 80 is very sad to hear that Linda Smith, comedian, President of the British Humanist Association, and Honorary Associate of the Rationalist Association has died at the age of 48. Smith was one of the funniest, wittiest and sharpest people I have ever heard - this is not hyperbole but fact. We can ill afford to lose someone of her caliber. (An obituary from the Guardian,written by Jeremy Hardy, is here. Tributes from Simon Hoggart, Mark Steel, Alan Coren and Sandi Toksvig can be read here. To listen to Linda Smith's appearance on BBC Radio 4's Devout Sceptics click here and scroll down to January 1st 2004)

Holy Hoaxes - 80's battered 1983 paperback copy of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (HBHG) does not state on the cover whether it is fact or fiction but a look at this site will tell you that the authors and researchers of that tome were hoodwinked pretty thoroughly by a French con artist, one Pierre Plantard. Strangely, despite this being fairly widely known, two of the original authors still talk as though the imaginings in their book and its sequel, The Messianic Legacy, are based upon facts they uncovered in the course of their investigations. Now these two, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are taking Dan Brown, author of the popular conspiracy thriller The Da Vinci Code, to court for lifting whole pieces of their work, unacknowledged, for the plot of his book. (Henry Lincoln, the third author is not taking part in the court action, perhaps because of other interests.) They do not actually use the word plagiarism but are suing for copyright infringement. Now in 80's possibly simplistic view, either the HBHG is factual and the findings in its pages can be used elsewhere (although references should be given, if only as a matter of courtesy) or it is fiction and use of its material without permission is plagiarism. Some of the theories put forward in HBHG are far from new, and the notion of a liaison between Jesus and Mary Magdalene goes back a very long way - back to such Gnostic gospels as the Gospel of Philip*. (80 recommends The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels) A large amount of the rest of the content concerning the Priory of Sion and its secret succession of grand masters owes its existence to the imagination of the aforementioned hoaxer Plantard and his confederates.

Talk of plagiarism has been in the air for a while now - 80 wrote about it over a year ago (see Flew Code Opus). The fact that the name of one of Brown's characters, Sir Leigh Teabing, is a partial anagram of the names Leigh and Baigent must have seemed to them as though Brown was thumbing his nose at them. On the other hand the furor will have undoubtedly helped sales of HBHG, first published in 1982, and reissued in October 2005 as a hardback "special illustrated edition with exclusive new material". (80 has not read this edition and consequently doesn't know if the Plantard hoax is reassessed - it seems unlikely). Amusingly for two books that are built around conspiracy theories some observers suspect (perhaps not too seriously) a scam to boost sales. See this item by Sarah Crown wherein she tells the reader "The far more interesting aspect of the Dan Brown case, in my opinion, is the Da Vinci-lite conspiracy theory I came up with all by myself, way back in 2005. The Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail are both, thanks to a series of industry takeovers, published by Random House. Surely this entire farrago is nothing more than a huge sales-driving stunt, carefully orchestrated by Random House to manipulate we poor, impressionable readers? The court case will no doubt generate fantastic pre-publicity for the Da Vinci Code film; meanwhile, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail has shot up the Amazon bestseller charts from number 173 yesterday lunchtime to number 10 at the time of writing. I suspect marketing management on the grandest scale." Compared to the tenuous, not to say tendentious, tales presented as fact by Leigh and Baigent, and as fiction by Brown, this sales boosting conspiracy has verisimilitude. For those interested in the few actual facts behind the suppositions, guesswork and hoodwinkery that form The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail and its  predecessors and derivatives, including Brown's thriller, it is well worth spending some time reading through the mass of information available from Paul Smith's excellent Priory of Sion, of which 80 has made great use.

* "the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples, and used to kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended]". Gospel of Philip
 

Welcome to South Dakota - where women are cherished. Unless, that is, they have an unwanted pregnancy, including one brought about by rape or incest. The South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on abortion last Friday, February 24th and it is now before Governor Mike Rounds, incidentally a Roman Catholic, the eldest of 11 children and a member of The Knights of Columbus. According to Associated Press "Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest." Can you even begin to imagine what it would be like for a victim of such a crime to have to bear their assailant's child? Doctors performing the operation could be given up to a five year prison term. This is considered by many to be the beginning of an attack on the Roe v Wade decision - timely now that President Bush has stacked the deck in the Supreme Court. This worrying news is made only worse when we learn "According to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, similar abortion proposals are in the works in seven other states: Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Georgia and Tennessee." Look for a rise in the use of unsafe abortion methods by those women too poor to travel out of state for an operation.

Among those who have commented on the legislation and whose words repay closer scrutiny, is Leslee Unruh, of the Alpha Center, a Sioux Falls "pregnancy counseling agency" who said most of the abortions performed in South Dakota do not stem from rape or even failed contraception, but are simply "conveniences." Take a moment to look at the Alpha Center's page on abortion - the graphic (and tendentious) descriptions there certainly don't sound like a "convenience". Unruh, like other so-called pro-life types, paints an entirely false picture of women treating such an invasive procedure as a "convenience" as if it was just an after-the-act form of birth control. Once matters have gone beyond the use of the "morning after" pill the decision to have an abortion is not something that is lightly undertaken - and certainly not viewed as a "convenience". Does she think that the (hypothetical) women she portrays as treating abortion as a "convenience" are going to stop doing so, just because abortion is outlawed? She is talking unsubstantiated nonsense. It comes as no surprise to learn that the Alpha Center, while called a "pregnancy counselling agency" in the AP piece, is described elsewhere as the "anti-abortion" Alpha Center (scroll down). Unmentioned in the article is that this "pregnancy counseling agency" is affiliated to Christian Heartbeat International (CHI) which claims to save "2000" a week (we are not told the percentage of these that are the product of rape or incest). It is CHI's stated aim "To help rebuild cultures worldwide that welcome every new life and nurture children within strong families, according to God's Plan, so that abortion is unthinkable." This move in South Dakota, and its obvious status as a stalking horse for an assault on Roe v Wade, is yet another instance of religionists, in this instance Christian, imposing their supernatural world view through legislation upon those of different faiths or none. This quote from Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women is indicative of the strong feelings that have been aroused. "In 2000, there were 878 legal abortions reported in South Dakota, and almost 80% of these were performed on women 20 and over. "Old enough to vote and serve in the military, these women are somehow presumed to be outlaws if they choose to exercise their Constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Will their voting rights be next?"

My, That's An Attractive Goat - in a country where anything other than conventional marriage is unthinkable some village elders have struck a courageous blow for human/ruminant relationships by forcing a man who had been caught in flagrante delicto with another man's goat to take the beast as his wife. Mr Alifi, the goat's owner, said "We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together." Quote this story when anyone dares to suggest the people of Sudan's Upper Nile State are unenlightened or have no sense of humor. Quite what the goat thinks of this shotgun marriage is not known. Sadly the BBC report fails to even tell us whether it was a billy or a nanny and whether this influenced the elders' decision. It certainly brings a whole new meaning to the expression "to get one's goat". Update - this goat thing seems to catching on in certain circles.

What About Free Speech? David Irving, the Holocaust-denying, "revisionist" historian, is, in 80's view, a nasty piece of work. Having said that, he does not deserve to be imprisoned. The fact of the Holocaust cannot be denied by any rational person, the weight of the evidence is overwhelming. This means that Irving's attempt to alter history is doomed to fail - the only people who find his case convincing are neo-fascists and rabid anti-Semites - the kind of people that are hardly going to be influenced by a rational, evidence-based argument anyway. It is obvious that Irving was a fool going to Austria, a country that had a Holocaust denial law, of which he had already fallen foul once. Perhaps he thought he would be a martyr to the clods that believe his historical revisionism. In the event his partial retraction in the courtroom probably did great harm to his reputation among the neo-fascists. The whole case also illustrates just how two-faced Europe can be in the matter of freedom of speech. We have Austria, on the one hand, a member of the EU that has imprisoned Irving for expressing his views on the Holocaust, while we have on the other the EU putting pressure on the Turkish government to drop the case of author Orhan Pamuk who dared to write about the genocide of Kurds and Armenians in the early years of the last century. Some might say that the two cases are not comparable - Irving was charged with Holocaust denial and Pamuk with "insulting Turkishness" but both of them were historians giving their interpretation of history. Whether those interpretations are correct is immaterial in this context. If free speech is to mean anything even a despicable individual as Irving should be walking as free as Pamuk. (An interesting spotlight on Turkish hypersensitivity concerning recent history and the country's ethnic minorities can be seen here. In a somewhat Stalinesque move the environment ministry is changing the scientific names of three indigenous animals by removing references to their geographical range. So the red fox, formerly known as Vulpes Vulpes Kurdistanica will now be merely Vulpes Vulpes. The ministry stated the old names wer