In case neither Heather or myself get the chance before tomorrow (GMT of course), this is just a quick Happy New Year to all our readers – even those whose calendars don’t change over at midnight 🙂 . We will try to get back into the swing of lots of ranting about idiocy as soon as the holiday season allows us.
Monthly Archives: December 2007
Ethical Torture
Sorry this is a long rant, but it is a subject I get het up about. Thank you for your patience.
Over on Pharyngula there is a bit of a debate going on as to can torture be considered ethical. Not as simply put as is generally torturing others ethical but, to quote the main commenter who supports the idea:
I can’t imagine how it’s possible to believe that torture is alway unethical. I, for one, can imagine scenarios in which ethics would positively require the use of torture. [matt]
Blimey. Ethics require the use of torture eh? Now it might just be me, and the effects of having been taught why the Geneva Convention decided to formalise the “conduct” of warfare, but I can’t get my head round this concept. I am, fortunately, not alone here and a few other commenters on Pharyngula were confused by this. Helpfully, Matt tries to clear things up a bit with a later comment:
Here is a believable situation: Based on good intelligence, the CIA has arrested a terrorist–during the arrest they find bomb building materials and schematics of hospitals and schools. He does not surrender any information under normal questioning. Despite lack of actionable intelligence, you know from interviews with him and others that an un-captured terrorist is soon going to attack a school or hospital.
Admittedly, this sounds like an episode of 24, but I am summarizing the interview I linked to in comment #21. I don’t understand how torturing an admitted terrorist to get information to stop the deaths of many innocent children is unethical.
Ah, to quote the Simpsons[*], “wont anyone think of the children!” Now accepting the fact that this is almost a script from 24/alias/[insert thriller series of choice], we can look at what is being said here and decide if it really is (as I suspect) approaching an ethical minefield.
This is an appeal to the ethical grounds that mistreating one person with the goal of saving a greater number of other people (especially children) is a good thing. For this argument to work you have to accept some basic points:
- Life has a value based solely on quantity (i.e. torturing 1 person to save 2 is a GOOD THING™)
- Doing a bad thing for good reasons is a GOOD THINGâ„¢
Unusually, I have no major disagreement[**] with these premises. Society often has to make judgements which end up being the greatest good to the greatest number, and some will always end up suffering. However, I still think Matt is talking out of his backside and that not only is this not a valid way of making torture ethical but even in the situation he presents it is flawed.
If we look at his 24 script example we can address a good few issues in it:
First off, it is believable. Comic references to 24 aside, it is reasonable to think that this scenario is valid in the outset (CIA arrest bomb maker who is refuses to talk). However it rapidly falls down from the basic premise onwards.
I find the need to use schools and hospitals in the example as unnecessary. Does this mean that it would be unethical to torture a terrorist to save (for example) and office block? Or a car factory? Or an abortion clinic? Are we saying here that protection of the sick and young is the reason why the prisoner (who at this time appears to be un-convicted of any crime) is tortured in a way the Inquistion would have approved of?
But more importantly, the mechanics fail. Badly. Here you have a dedicated terrorist who was (I assume) planning to martyr himself for the cause and now refuses to talk during the legal interrogation techniques he is subjected to [***]. For some reason, even though he isn’t talking, he has given you the information that A N Other terrorist is going to blow up the [insert emotional location here] and you don’t have long to find out.
This is getting a touch far-fetched and a touch self-contradictory, but we will continue.
Now, Jack Bauer turns up and the fun begins. The terrorist is tortured. What happens?
Well this is a hypothetical situation[****] so we can play with anything. Obviously the torture breaks the terrorist quickly and he starts saying things. He gives up a name (for the sake of narrative we will call the person Ahmed) and claims Ahmed is the terrorist on the loose.
What happens next?
Well, thousands of years of human study has shown that torture is a good way of getting the prisoner to say whatever he thinks will make the torture stop. Not what is necessarily true, but what ever will make the torturer stop hurting him. The basic premise that torture is required is that this is time sensitive so all our terrorist needs to do is stave off the waterboarding for long enough for Abdullah to blow up the School/Hospital/Orphanage (whatever) and he has not only won, but rendered the torture unethical. In the mean time, the CTU/CIA/FBI/Elevator Inspector Unit are busy running round chasing Ahmed (who might be totally innocent) and diverting resources away from the real threat.
In this case, was the torture ethical? It failed the ethical validity test, in that no one was saved as a result of the torture. If this is too far fetched for you, what about this scenario:
The terrorist gives up Abdullah but genuinely doesn’t know where he is so CTU/CIA (etc, you get the joke) have to use their massive resources to find him – however they are too late and the explosion goes off, with all the dead innocents. The torture of the terrorist did nothing to save anyone. Again, it fails the validity test.
As a third scenario, the CIA made a mistake and the man detained has a similar sounding name to the terrorist but is actually totally innocent and doesn’t know anything. The reason he isn’t giving anything during the traditional questioning is because he doesn’t know anything. The waterboarding commences. In fear for his life, begging to be let free, the innocent man shouts out names which sound plausible until eventually the torturers pick up on one and chase after the wrong person again. Again, the bomb goes off and the torture achieved nothing. Was it ethical do it?
There are possibly an infinite number of examples where the use of torture in this situation is unethical compared to a very small set where it can claim some ethical validity – namely in the 24-esque one where the prisoner has enough information to allow the other terrorist to be caught just in time to prevent the explosion.
The basic requirement to ever judge torture “ethical” is knowing what the outcome will be. Before the torturers begin waterboarding the prisoner they have no way of knowing what value the information they get will have. They could continue their torture until the person dies without getting the information which makes it ethical. Whatever the final outcome, the torture begins as an unethical process.
So, the question I want to ask is does a post hoc rationalisation of an act determine if it is, or isn’t an ethical act? Is the detention and mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay ethical?
Lastly, the slippery slope. Why is it only terror suspects who can be tortured? What about a murder suspect or a rapist? What about some one who knows a mass murderer – can they be tortured to give up the mass murderer’s location before he kills again? Why draw the line at murderers?
Can torture ever be ethical? I still dont think so.
Wonderfully, Pharyngula sums things up in a subsequent post:
Here is all that torture is good for: inspiring fear in a population. If you want it widely known that your ruling regime is utterly ruthless and doesn’t care about individuals, all you have to do is scoop up random people suspected of anti-government activities, hold them for a few weeks, and return them as shattered wrecks with mangled limbs, while treating the monsters who would do such a thing as respected members of the ruling clique, who are immune from legal prosecution.
I seem to recall Saddam-era Iraq was a big one for torture and this was roundly criticised in the west. Now “we” rule Iraq, opinions have changed…
—
[*] And yes, I am now aware that the Simpsons is not a cartoon / comedy show it is actually a real life documentary. As is 24. And Alias. And …
[**] I actually don’t think that doing a bad thing for good reasons is a good thing – or even an acceptable thing. I can, however, accept it is a valid point of view though so I have no intention of challenging it here.
[***] These are in no way “humane” in any real sense of the word. It is a truism to say every one breaks eventually. The problem with traditional torture interrogation is that it is too slow for today’s 24 addicted world. If the intelligence agencies worked better, they would have more time to get information out of the terrorists…
[****] Well, it is hypothetical here. Sadly there are people undergoing this treatment right now. While most may be in evil, dictatorial, third world regimes, not all are…
Time going backwards
Some old photographs on the BBC’s website show the young Benazir Bhutto. She wore standard international 1970s clothes – a vaguely “ethnic” dress in one picture and a silk blouse in another. She didn’t just lack an all-covering tent/veil – she wasn’t even wearing a headscarf. She looked wealthy and confident. Hardly surprising, given that she was the Pakistani Prime Minister’s daughter. You could be looking at a young female member of the Kennedy clan. She could have been a privileged young woman from any cultural background. Becoming Prime Minister in her own right must have seemed an achievable goal, even at that age, with the example of Indira Gandhi in India.
Her assassination was clearly horrific. It even took in a couple of dozen other people, in what could almost be the textbook definition of overkill. That is, Benazir Bhutto had already been shot dead by the time the assassin blew himself and the surrounding crowd up.
I have no knowledge of what the killer expected to achieve or what his beliefs were. The BBC site suggests that similar attacks are being directed against the ruling party and other opposition parties and hence her assassination is indicative of a general regional destabilisation.
However, Benazir Bhutto’s murder still has unusual international resonance, just because of the rarity of her career. A woman Prime Minister elected to power in a Muslim country. Twice. So huge numbers of Muslim voters and Muslim clerics didn’t have a problem with her lack of hijab, her high-powered education, her outspokenness, even with seeing her naked face.
(At least as rare in the non-Islamic world. You can count major female political leaders on the toes of one foot and still have two to spare.)
She was a successful and powerful woman in a country set up as Islamic from its very first day. How likely is it that a Pakistani woman from a similar background could even be photographed in such an innocent way today, let alone that she could achieve political power?
Wasn’t the 20th century supposed to be about progress? It looks as if the world of 40 years ago was much more modern and progressive than today’s world. So why not all vow to devote the next century to returning to medieval values, so that, when we fail dismally to achieve that goal, we might actually find we’ve sparked some advances.
Seasons Greetings
Well, happy christmas or whatever you wish to celebrate at this time of year. For me, saturnalia is a good enough reason to not let the theists steal our holidays!
‘Tis the season to be frightened.
It is a Christmas tradition in the UK for the soaps to outdo each other with stories of despair, desperation, disaster and sorrow (ran out of a fourth “d”). We are used to it over here and I get round it by the simple expedient of not watching. Easily done. However, today I was caught off guard by reading the letters page in the Guardian newspaper.
In the letters page of today’s paper (and online by the magic of the internet), Tony McNulty (the minster of state for security, counterterrorism, crime and policing) goes out of his way to remind everyone why we should be so scared we continue to pay him. Ladies and Gentlefolk of Britain, be scared. In a letter about why we need control orders, Mr McNulty writes:
The UK faces an unprecedented threat from terrorism and the government’s top priority is to protect the public.
Oh my! Toutatis Save Us! Having grown up through three decades of IRA “Christmas Campaigns” I really do not believe this. I have clear memories of shopping in Manchester and London as the shops empty of customers following a “bomb threat.” I remember watching on the news when the IRA bombed the Brighton hotel Margaret Thatcher was in. I remember watching the news when 10 Downing Street was mortar’d by the IRA. I remember car bombs, shootings, and I remember why we don’t have bins in train stations.
What has changed? What is so “unprecedented” about the threat from Islamic terrorism? The only thing I can think of is this time the terrorist doesn’t make escape plans – so at least you don’t get experienced bombers…
There are certain individuals who we have strong suspicion are involved in terrorist activity but who we cannot prosecute or, if they are foreign nationals, deport.
Wow, this is scary. Very scary. Basically put, if the government thinks you are guilty of a crime, but doesn’t have enough evidence for it to survive a trial, they will place you under a control order. Reading this, it seems the Minister is almost wishful for a state where the government could prosecute / deport people it thought were guilty.
Now, at first pass, this seems reasonable. On a daily basis the media show us news items of evil guilty people who have escaped justice by the crafty expedient of being found innocent (or worse, there not being any evidence of their guilt). This has, to an extent, inoculated us against the sheer outrage we should feel over this.Ă‚Â It seems to me that the relationship between the people and the government who are supposed to work on their behalf has changed for the much worse. Now, we the people, need to live in fear of the government who seek to be able to take executive action against free citizens without being encumbered by the rule of law.Ă‚Â Yeah, it frightens me. Well done Guardian.
None of this is meant to pour scorn on the work and effort of the security forces who toil ceaselessly to protect the people. I can only imagine the frustration and resentment they suffer as various trials where they know the person is guilty but for whatever reason they are released. However, the “government” is not supposed to feel this resentment. We, as a society, are supposed to manage and tolerate the frustrations of our public servants.
Harsh though it may seem, police (and security) officers are human and make mistakes. They suffer from poor judgement, irrational ideas and get things wrong just like the rest of us. Allowing a person’s freedom to be removed without sufficient evidence to convince a court simply means we are pandering to the feelings of these public servants – no longer are they serving the public interest, but we are serving their needs. This is wrong. If a police officer feels person x is “guilty” then they need to get enough evidence to prove it. If they are unable to get the evidence, then they have to assume that they were mistaken and the person was innocent after all.
What other way can there be?
The Archbishop of Wrong
It seems it only takes heather and myself being away for a few days before the loonies in Britain feel it is safe to crawl out from under their rocks.
On Saturday, the BBC reported that the well known (*) Dr Barry Morgan had joined the fray in the ongoing War Against Atheism:
The Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, has described a rise in “fundamentalism” as one of the great problems facing the world.
He focused on what he described as “atheistic fundamentalism”.
He said it led to situations such as councils calling Christmas “Winterval”, schools refusing to put on nativity plays and crosses removed from chapels.
Absolute blithering nonsense. This is simply ignorant rubbish being thrown around by an almost unheard of member of the Church.
While it is true that some councils have tried to re-define the Christmas period and its (pagan originated) celebrations but not one of them is doing it because of pressure (real or imagined) from atheists. The sad reality is that some, misguided, councils are so wrapped up preventing the most hypersensitive minority-group person from being offended they will bend over backwards to change things. Even Christians on the councils go out of their way to to make sure the festival is as inoffensive as possible. Sadly, despite the UK having a non-theist majority, the feelings of Atheists is not the issue.
For some reason, certain councils in the UK feel that Christmas will be offensive to non-Christian religious groups and as a result they try to tone down what is perceived as the Christian input into the celebration. To date, I have heard of no Muslim, Hindu, Atheist or Jain (**) who has complained about Christmas. Now, I am sure there are some – just as the BNP(***) get uptight about Eid or whatever – who get upset about Christmas but they are certainly not the segments which should be pandered to.
Even as a Devout Atheist, I would be equally upset if a Muslim (or Hindu etc) group cancelled a festival of their own because of pressure from organisations like the National Front…
Until recently I had assumed that the War on Atheism was almost uniquely American, but in recent weeks it seems that the British churches (of all flavours) are doing their utmost to heap scorn upon Atheists and blame them for the worlds problems.
Back to Dr Morgan. Amazingly he is sometimes correct (but not very often):
In his Christmas message, the archbishop said: “Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous.”
Correct, with limits. Atheism isn’t a religion. There is no Atheist fundamentalism.
The archbishop said “atheistic fundamentalism” was a new phenomenon.
Incorrect in that atheist fundamentalism doesn’t exist. Atheism is certainly not new.
He said it advocated that religion in general and Christianity in particular have no substance, and that some view the faith as “superstitious nonsense”.
Again, partially correct. Religion has no substance and faith is superstitions nonsense. Christianity is not singled out.
As well as leading to Christmas being called “Winterval,” the archbishop said “virulent, almost irrational” attacks on Christianity led to hospitals removing all Christian symbols from their chapels, and schools refusing to allow children to send Christmas cards with a Christian message.
This is not the work of Atheists. I wish it was because then it would show “atheism” was a strong enough force in the largely secular country in which I live to make a difference. Sadly we Atheists (and Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims etc.) are still controlled by Christian laws and values. Does that not seem odd when you hear all these Bishops bleating about how powerful the Evil Atheist Overlords are?
He also said it led to things like “airlines refusing staff the freedom to wear a cross round their necks” – a reference to the row in which British Airways (BA) suspended an employee who insisted on wearing a cross necklace.
Again, absolutely NOTHING to do with Atheism. This was because airline regulations said no jewellery was allowed to be worn by any staff. Notice how the Archbishop has twisted the whole issue to make it seem like the fact it was a cross was the important part – implying if she had worn an Atheist necklace she would have been allowed to carry on working. Lying for Jeebus is still lying, Archbishop.
All in all, it is ironic that the Archbishop feels able to talk on topics he is so painfully ignorant about. It strikes me that the fear of Atheism is so great that he is willing to overlook the complete nonsense of what he is saying, ignore the fact it is other Abrahamic religions which are causing the most grief, and still try to rattle his sabre against the Atheist.
It is doubly ironic when you think that the Christmas festival people are trying to “save” as an integral part of British Christian culture is nothing of the sort. Still, Christians never really have a good grasp of history…
—
(*) Yes, I am being sarcastic here.
(**) Dont worry, it is the only Donovan song I’ve ever liked.
(***) British National Party – right wing idiots.
Seasonal Downtime
Well it is the middle of winter now (literally) and both Heather and I are getting tied up in celebrations for what must be the Festival of Seaxneat, as being devout atheists we don’t “celebrate” christmas……….. Seriously, we will still be blogging over the next two weeks but as we both have a lot of travel to put up with our online time will be limited. Hope every one has a happy [insert chosen holiday here] and a great new year [except for those whose calendar doesn’t mark a new year in 10 days time…] 🙂
LOL – It’s almost Identity theft
Quite impressed to see that Possummama aka Atheist in a mini van has a post with the title “Open letter to Heather.” I was a bit disappointed to find out it’s blatantly not me, unless i have a weird evil (christian troll) twin.
Guantanamo, Politics and the Rule of Law
Today, one of the radio news headlines was the release of 4 people with British residency status from Guantanamo Bay. Obviously it is a slow news day because this had lots of coverage and not all of it made me feel warm and fuzzy about how the rule of law is viewed in this country.
The War On Terror is a pervasive aspect of western society today. For some reason, jingoistic right wingers feel that this is a war which can both be fought and can be won. The reality is so different it may as well be in the seventh dimension. I wont rant for ages on this, but in a nutshell terror is an emotion which can’t be fought. Terrorism is a tactic which also cant be fought. The more society allows itself to worry about “fighting terror” the more afraid it becomes – and the terrorist organisations notch up yet another victory. UBL and the rest of the Islamic extremist terrorists no longer need to blow things up to destroy western civilisation, we are happily doing it to ourselves. Well done all.
Anyway, the reason I harp on about this is the unadulterated fearmongering which has taken place, at the expense of any outmoded ideas of law or rights, following the release of the “Gitmo 4.”
Before I go any further, the background to this is from the BBC:
Three British residents held by the US at Guantanamo Bay for four-and-a-half years have been detained after arriving back in the UK. Omar Deghayes and Abdenour Samuer were arrested under the Terrorism Act after they arrived at Luton Airport and are being questioned at Paddington Green.
Jamil el-Banna was not arrested but is being detained under the act and questioned at a Luton police station.
The government has said their immigration status will be reviewed.
Another freed UK resident, Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer, is expected to return to his native Saudi Arabia.
A fifth UK resident, Ethiopian Binyam Mohammed, will remain at Guantanamo.
So, they have already spent four and half years in prison (we wont go into the torture issue for now) without any charges or there being sufficient evidence for them to face trial in a court of law. Amazing. Scary but still amazing. National pride forces me to point out that now the three who have now been arrested are at least in the system and most probably going to be protected (and punished should they be found guilty) in accordance with the rule of law that acts as the cornerstone of our “society.”
On Radio 4’s PM show today (listen again 1 is interesting, this bit starts at around 8 minutes into the show and lasts 2 minutes) the Shadow Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones showed a very, very scary insight to what the UK will face should the Conservatve party get into government.
After a nice start in which she spouts a few generalised terms about it being good for the US government to eventually close Guantanamo Bay, she instantly jumps on the chance to attack the government – no matter how wrong her position is.
Over and over she appeals to public fear with a phrase along the lines of:
What we need to know and what we dont know is what the Government’s intentions [towards the released men] are.
Now, call me old fashioned but why do “we” need to know this? At the time the Baroness was making this heartfelt plea to fear, the men were on a plane back to the UK escorted by Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorist Officers. If the government had publicly stated “we will arrest them” or “we will release them without charge” what actual difference would it have made to the public I assume she means with the “we.”
Her main argument that something must be done is:
The Pentagon says, and has consistently maintained, that these men are dangerous.
WTF. She follows this odd line of reasoning up with explaining this is why the government should hold the “public safety in sufficient regard to give us some idea what they [they government] intend to do next.” Seriously. I really can not follow this line of reasoning so if you can explain how telling the public what they intend to do has any impact on public safety please tell me. I could (sort of) understan
d if she was complaining about the government choice of actions effecting public safety but this just struck me as rather feeble attempt to dig at the government without having anything to dig at.
The really scary bit, considering she is a member of the house of Lords, is when the presenter asks her why we should think they are actually dangerous. He asks her why, if they are so dangerous, hasn’t the US government prosecuted them and why, if they are such a threat to civilisation, they have been released.
In response to this the Baroness stumbles a little bit claiming you cant draw the conclusion that the lack of any legal action from the US government (after over 4 years of torture questioning) means they are not the most dangerous people on Earth. She states that:
The US government has consistently claimed these people are non-combatants, I mean not legitimate combatants …
Worrying slip there…
… and have not been willing to initiate trials for them. It doesn’t follow that there cant be a legal proceeding here or some measures and that is what we need to know.
Here we go with the “need to know” again…
Over and over she stresses that some “responsible action” should be taken on these people until they can prove themselves innocent of all charges. It is comical how often she uses the phrase “we need to know what is going to happen” (or a close variant) and she seems to consider that, because the US government thinks these people may be terrorists, they must be terrorists despite no trial or disclosed evidence. She is taking it at 100% face value that the US are correct and do not make mistakes.
The presenter points out that Amnesty International thinks the men should be treated first and foremost as the victims of a miscarriage of justice. The Shadow Security Minister replied:
Part of our problem is that we dont know on what basis we can regard these people [mumbles her words a bit] on the basis that we dont know what the government is going to do next or what the government is going to do with the charges against them.
What barely intelligible nonsense she is coming out with.Ă‚Â Worryingly, she has (despite claims to the contrary) decided that these men are guilty until proven innocent.
I make no preconceived judgement on how these men should be treated, what is clear is that they must be subjected to some kind of procedure and that we will know why the government has resorted to the procedure it does,
Is it me, or does her assumption that they be subjected to “some kind of procedure” imply a preconceived judgement on how they should be treated?
These men are innocent until proven guilty. That the Shadow Security Minister seems to completely miss this concept – and if anything call for the opposite – is worrying. That the UK news is crawling with articles about terrorists being released to the UK is worrying. The comments made by idiotic Daily Mail readers is predictable, however…
Usama Bin Laden must be laughing himself all the way to the front of his cave. Western society is feasting on itself in an attempt to stop people dying. Well done us all.
—
1: Please note, this will only point to the correct show until Wednesday 26 December 2007
The bleak midwinter
Carols are good. Well, some carols are good. On an alcohol-fuelled work Christmas outing (Look, atheists can celebrate the winter solstice, OK?) I started a stupid meme about “What’s your favourite carol?”
(This started in the face of someone, who had previously seemed averagely sane, who announced himself to be a devotee of Cliff Richard’s Christmas oeuvre. Argh. You Americans really don’t know how lucky you are. You may never have heard Mistletoe and Wine. Just pray to the inhuman void or Toutatis or whoever that you never find out )
Results were Silent Night as clear winner. at more or less 4 to 1. There were two votes for In the Bleak Midwinter and one each for a random collection that included things like Away in a Manger and Little Donkey.
Given enough wine,. I might argue a case for the German version of Silent Night, but IMHO it must be In the Bleak Midwinter for the win.
It’s by Christina Rossetti. Some of the language is stunning. “Earth stood hard as iron, water like a stone.” It sings itself. Any urchins on my doorstep that go that extra mile and sing it are guaranteed a payout.
Well what’s the atheists’ favourite carol, then?
Rageworthy story
Well, it’s good news, in one sense. “Saudi king pardons rape victim” according to the BBC.
You read that correctly. The headline did indeed say victim, not perpetrator.
The Saudi king has pardoned a female rape victim sentenced to jail and 200 lashes for being alone with a man raped in the same attack, reports say.
This man and woman were in a car when they were abducted and raped by seven men.
The “Qatif girl” case caused an international outcry with widespread criticism of the Saudi justice system
The words “laughably named” could fit snugly in that sentence between Saudi and justice.
The less “good news” aspects of this story are that the halfway-sane outcome is only the result of pressure from the west and that the pardon does not imply that there was any error on the court’s decision. There is no reason to assume that such sentences won’t be passed in the future.
The custodial sentence plus 200 lashes was imposed after the woman, who has not been named, appealed against an earlier sentence of 90 lashes.
She dared to appeal. Her sentence was more than doubled. The man – who you will note was also raped – was also sentenced to 90 lashes. The BBC doesn’t know if he was “pardoned” too and I wouldn’t hold out much hope on this showing.
The pardon was said not to imply any criticism of the sentence. It was just supposed to be the King expressing some seasonal goodwill for Eid al-Adha. Well done, your highness. According to the BBC, he’s been criticised on some conservative websites for the pardon, which is seen as kowtowing to the west. Words fail.
Get thee behind me, Santa
Someone had to do it, it might as well be me..
Learning History or Mythology?
I was going to avoid the topic of how recent research identified hardly any one knew the biblical stories any more. Heather has covered it, as has Psycho Atheist. Both of these posts pretty much hammer every point I could think of making on this. Until today, that is.
Today, as I was driving around the freezing, wet, countryside, I was listening to BBC Local Radio. There was some weird discussion (I missed the start of it, so was a bit lost), but it basically boiled down to some lunatics ranting (and I mean they sounded like froth was coming out of their mouths they were so angry) about what a disgrace it was. The general consensus was that this loss of nativity teaching was leading to a complete breakdown of our society.
This did get me thinking a bit. I like history, and historical stories, as much (if not more) than the next person (unless that person is Alun) so I think it is a shame people do not know historical details. That said, there is a much larger gap in the knowledge than this tiny Christian questionnaire shows. To remind you, the questions asked were:
- According to the Christian Bible story where was Jesus born?
- Who told Mary she would give birth to a son?
- Who was Jesus’ cousin?
- Where did Joseph, Mary and Jesus go to escape King Herod?
Ok, I have to admit, I had to double check who Jeebus’ cousin was. Shame on me. However, in my defence, this is not a history of my culture. In the modern ages we place a lot of emphasis on people tracing their roots and learning their own cultural history, so as far as I am concerned this is as alien to me as if the questionnaire was about the Jade Emperor. Despite the nonsense I heard on the radio, one caller actually said “like it or not, we are a Christian nation and our children should learn the facts about Christianity” (I suspect he is unaware of the term “ironic”), I live in a Northern European with a celtic-slavic population. With that in mind, I wonder how many people know the proper history about their own culture. If I did a survey of people in the street with the following questions, how many would answer ANY correctly?
- What tribe was Beowulf from?
- Where did the Scot tribe come from?
- Who was Fenrir’s Father?
- Where does Heimdal stand guard?
I suspect there will be less than 1 in 3 of the population who can get those correct (at least without resorting to Wiki / Google searches).
If we want to teach our children myths, teach them ones which are interesting a relevant to their culture. If we want them to learn “real” history, then teach them the real history not the biblical variant.
Put the holy grail in your arteries
In a spirit of mid-winter-solstice charity, I decided to take seriously the claim on
worldnet daily that there is an amazing pill that can unblock your arteries. It must be an advert, although you’d have to be a really regular devotee of the site to detect that from the index page. The relevant page is labelled “Breaking Health News“on the homepage so I’m treating it as an item of news.
(It’s not as if anyone would ever dream of accusing the likes of worldnet daily advertisers of preying on the fears of the gullible and sick to make a quick buck.)
The 23-Cent LIFE-SAVER Heart Surgeons NEVER TELL YOU ABOUT!
The astonishing health miracle 1.5 million grateful patients swear by…
So safe, it’s FDA-APPROVED for use in baby food: Proven THREE TIMES SAFER than aspirin—used worldwide for 56 years without any significant side-effects ever reported!
So effective, you can actually SEE it working: medical studies prove it works and U.S. doctors prescribe it every day!
So cheap, it’s JUST PENNIES A DAY: Just 23 cents per capsule—one-tenth the cost of a gallon of gas!
The testimonials suggest we are the presence of a miracle cure. Arteries cleared. Heart surgery avoided. Blood pressure normalised. Breathing problems sorted out. Ankles unswollen. Eyesight improved. Liver spots disappeared. Paralysis cured, even.
Naturally, I think ‘As they said on the Simpsons, “Where can we get these placebos?”‘
There is a substance that safely unblocks arteries and it’s been known for 56 years? Why is there still any arterial disease then?
Because heart surgeons won’t tell you about it? Those skeptical science-y types spoil everything… Surely that’s not because it doesn’t work? That would be unthinkable. I mean it’s advertised on a site as reputable as worldnet daily. (Snurk)
Or, is worldnet daily suggesting that surgeons’ greed is stopping patients from getting a safe and cheap treatment? Blimey, they’ll be arguing for socialised medicine next! But “doctors prescribe it every day.” (That must be regular doctors, not those greedy heart surgeons, then.)
It is a chemical called EDTA. Wikipedia puts a mild dampener on the enthusiasm. Among many other uses, it’s an industrial solvent, a water softener and a fertiliser. It’s used to clean bottles and it’s put in soft drinks to mitigate the formation of benzene. (Argh, benzene in soft drinks?) European and US rivers are awash with it apparently. It appears to be not exactly 100% safe either.
There’s even an odd, if intriguing, celeb scandal connection mentioned in the Wiki page:
EDTA played a role in the O.J. Simpson trial when one of the blood samples collected from Simpson’s estate was found to contain traces of the compound. This was used by the defense to indicate that the sample had been planted from one of the vials collected during the investigation. Prosecution claimed EDTA might have appeared in the sample as a result of eating McDonald’s foods ….
Wikipedia describes the uses proposed by the wingnut site advert as “theoretical.” A Cochrane Collection review of the studies, as reported in Medscape, found no evidence of any effects in all but one study of it. The other one (involving 10 people) was stopped when the results showed an effect. (Uh? Don’t ask me. I just blog this stuff.)
At present, there is insufficient evidence to decide on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of chelation therapy in improving clinical outcomes of people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
Compared to swallowing whole the whole worldnet daily message, swallowing mostly harmless pills is pretty small beer. Not to mention swallowing the line that you can get a load of free gifts to keep even if you send the stuff back as not working.
So, how much do they charge for this widely available industrial solvent? (Which seems to be so freely used that it’s a wonder there’s anyone left with plaque in their arteries)
BEST VALUE: A full year of Enhanced Oral Chelation™™ for just $239.40. I SAVE $120.00 and get all 7 FREE gifts:
4 FREE bottles of Mineral Power!â„¢ (a $79.80 value)
NO MORE SNEAK ATTACKS! (a $19.95 value)
DE-GUNK YOUR ARTERIES FOR LIFE! (a $19.95 value)
FREE SHIPPING AND HANDLING
$246.65 worth of discounts and FREE gifts in all!
Bloody hell! It costs $246.65 for 4 bottles of a mineral supplement, a couple of leaflets and some money-off coupons!
And what happened to the “$126.65 value, FREE!” they were shouting about earlier in the page? Were the leaflets affected by the rise in oil prices in the time between writing the page and setting up an order form? The numbers are so specific, they couldn’t have just pulled them out of the air could they?
*************
Pointless aside: Doesn’t chelation mean turning something into a turtle? Or a shell?
The Emperors strike back
Governments are supposed to have advisors and advisory committees for a reason. Otherwise, it’s like buying a satnav for your car but just driving in the opposite direction to the one it suggests.
The trouble is that governments haven’t had their thinking formed by a close reading of the “Emperor’s new clothes” story. They need to be surrounded by people who tell them their new suit is sumptuously sheer. Any courtier who dares to say, however diplomatically, “My liege, that whole subtle tailoring thing isn’t quite borne out by the evidence of the senses” becomes an ex-courtier pretty quickly.
The Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons is not remotely impressed by the need for 42 days’ detention for terror suspects. The BBC reported that the committee “saw no evidence that there was a case for extending the pre-charge detention beyond 28 days.”
Committee chairman Keith Vaz said the committee recognised there was a “real and acute” threat from terrorism but said there was a danger Muslims could come to view detention as a form of internment…
Not just Muslims. It is clearly a form of internment, if you accept that “internment” is a euphemism for “locking up people without evidence, so as make martyrs of them and to turn people who culturally identify with them into enemies of the state.”
Former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith was “unequivocal” in opposing the 42 day limit, whenĂ‚Â interviewed in the Guardian on 6 December. He said “I thought it was wrong. I thought it was unnecessary and I believe these things are very important.”
Generally, the whole of informed opinion is pretty well clear on the issue. So, whose advice do you think the government will follow?
Or what about Bush? Fingar’s report, published last week, reached the conclusion that there was no evidence that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. How much ice does a professional intelligence report cut in terms of stopping the development of T.W.A.T. beta 3.1? Probably little enough, unfortunately. The very word “intelligence” probably sends a shudder down the spines of Bush and his associates.
Obviously, the whole point of being an Emperor is that you don’t need to listen to your stronger-willed and more honest advisers. You can just carry on with whatever nude modelling career your stylists suggest. It’s not as if your subjects have votes or anything…