melanie phillips: science is the enemy of reason, fire is the enemy of hot

From the beginning of the month, some premium BSE-grade quality Melanie Phillips where she attempts to differentiate one kind of irrational belief and another kind of entirely irrational belief.

Attempting to attack Richard Dawkins for examining a "range of ludicrous therapies and gurus,  including faith healers, psychic mediums, 'angel therapists', 'aura photographers', astrologers and others" while still agreeing with him for doing so, Phillips writes:

But where Dawkins goes wrong is to assume this is all as irrational as believing in God. The truth is that it is the collapse of religious faith that has prompted the rise of such irrationality.  

We are living in a scientific, largely post-religious age in which faith is presented as unscientific superstition. Yet paradoxically, we have replaced such faith by belief in demonstrable nonsense. [...]

The big mistake is to see religion and reason as polar opposites. They are not. In fact, reason is intrinsic to the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible provides a picture of a rational Creator and an orderly universe - which, accordingly, provided the template for the exercise of reason and the development of science.

Apparently, an account of the creation of the world and every living creature in it over seven days doesn't count as "demonstrable nonsense" which has nothing to do with reason. Winding herself into a zen state of ass-backwardness, Phillips then claims that religious faith is responsible for objective truth and that it's the route back to logic:

How we feel about things has become all-important. So reason has been knocked off its perch by emotion, and thinking has been replaced by feelings.

This has meant our society can no longer distinguish between truth and lies by using evidence and logic. And this collapse of objective truth has, in turn, come to undermine science itself which is playing a role for which it is not fitted.

There's a canyon of reasoning between those two paragraphs - her argument esentially being "people who don't use evidence and reason aren't using evidence and reason." 

The conclusion that we should then turn to faith for empirical salvation is really quite brilliantly stupid: let's solve the problem of system which doesn't differentiate between truth and lies with a system that sees testing claims with evidence as proof of a lack of faith. Phillips' argument seems to be that religion is rational because she says so. Science is the enemy of reason! Hot is the enemy of fire! Up is the enemy of the sky!

There's also room for the traditional mis-reading of evolutionary theory:

Science cannot explain the origin of the universe. Yet it now presumes to do so and as a result it has descended into irrationality.

The most conspicuous example of this is provided by Dawkins himself, who breaks the rules of scientific evidence by seeking to claim that Darwin's theory of evolution - which sought to explain how complex organisms evolved through random natural selection - also accounts for the origin of life itself.

Wrrrrrong. The scientific theory of evolution—the explanation for how evolution occurs—states that all living things are descended from a single common ancestor at some point in the distant past. Evolutionary theory itself doesn't make any claim to explain the "origin of life itself" and - in any case - advancing a theoretical account of the origin of life based on available evidence is the exact opposite of irrationality.

It's big fat straw man argument, allowing Phillips to claim there's "no evidence for this whatever" when barely a day goes by without fresh, peer-reviewed research supporting evolution appearing in the public domain.

Finally, if there was any lingering belief that Phillips knows anything at all about what she's writing, there's this:

Moreover, since science essentially takes us wherever the evidence leads, the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research - which have revealed the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life - have thrown into doubt the theory that life emerged spontaneously in a random universe.

These findings have given rise to a school of scientists promoting the theory of Intelligent Design, which suggests that some force embodying purpose and foresight lay behind the origin of the universe.

Intelligent Design is possibly the most intellectually bankrupt, dishonest body of thought in the C21st: there's no research to support it, and the unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. Pointing this out isn't about stifling dissent, but about realising there's a point at which tolerating total fucking morons is a bad use of time and resources.

anne applebaum: obama is popular, therefore cannot get elected

Anne Applebaum's assessment of the Democratic candidates for the next presidential election seems to assume that the majority of American voters are stupid. Having declared the problem with Obama isn't that he's black, Applebaum writes:

Though clearly brilliant - he writes fluid, best-selling books and was top of his class at Harvard law school - Obama is the son of a Kenyan father he hardly knew and a white mother from Kansas. He spent part of his childhood in Indonesia - and his middle name is "Hussein".

It's an impossible biography, one would imagine, for middle America to accept. Yet in the first six months of this year Obama raised more money than any other candidate. Go figure.

So it's not that he's black, it's that he has an ethnically diverse background. Nice work, Anne.

Notice how even though Obama is apparently exceptionally successful (not only outraising other candidates but doing so from a larger number of smaller donors) it's impossible for him to be accepted by middle America? It's not just unlikely for him to win: his success in growing his campaign is somehow proof of a "fatal flaw" in his electability.

Of course, to hold these apparently contradictory ideas in your head you need to be an elite pundit, capable of entirely ignoring tricksy things like actual evidence of public opinion to decide for yourself What Middle America Really Wants - and as with the pundit consensus the first time W Bush was elected over Gore, it's apparently not someone who is accomplished or "clearly brilliant." Obama's just too smart and interesting to be elected.

Finally, there's the shrug of the shoulders at a universe that doesn't match a pre-determined world view. People genuinely don't care about a candidate's middle name and see the screeching of the right-wing media on that issue for the tawdry, hate-mongering spectacle it is?

"Go figure."

the british abroad

Those foreigners, coming over here.. uhm, going over there.. taking our.. their.. jobs:

More people are leaving Britain than at any time for a generation - and possibly for a century.

The number of Britons emigrating in the 12 months to July 2006 reached 385,000, the highest since present counting methods were introduced in 1991, new figures show. [...] A study last year by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggested that one in 12 British nationals may be living abroad, a total of about 5.5 million. [...]

Surveys indicate that another one million are set to pack their bags for good over the next five years and a further 500,000 live abroad for part of the year. Not only do more British live abroad than any other nationality, they are also more spread out. There are 41 countries with more than 10,000 British living there and another 71 countries with more than 1,000.

Luckily, the British are known for learning local languages and adopting local customs, rather than talking loudly and slowly until they are understood. Oh, hang on - I may have made some kind of mistake..

"calf-flashing antics"

More important journalism:

The night Crimewatch turned into Thighwatch

First it was Emily Maitlis and her calf-flashing antics on a trailer for the 10 O'Clock News.

Now Fiona Bruce has raised the bar - and the hemline - in the competition to see which female BBC newsreader can show the most leg. To present Crimewatch on Monday night the 43-year-old chose a knee-length dress which probably looked fine when she slipped it on.

She showed HER CALVES! WHORE! WHORE!!

(For bonus awful, note that the Mail both maintains that "the public" has taken offence at a woman's legs, while continuing to lambast prudes and PC killjoys for objecting to the presentation of women's bodies in our culture. It's almost as though certain attitudes to sex are entirely hypocritical.)

the shopping gene myth

Ah, it's the return of the shopping gene myth:

Women have evolutionary gene which makes them born to shop, experts say

Presumably as opposed to non-evolutionary genes, which are acquired by mail-order.

With their talent for sniffing out a bargain and elbowing a safe path through the sales, women have long suspected they were born to shop.

Now scientists have proved them right. [...] While men developed the acute sense of direction needed for hunting, women mastered the art of gathering food such as fruits and berries.

Because remembering where the food is requires no sense of direction.

Apparently displaying a kind of confirmation bias that's startling, the "scientists" involved in this research don't seem to have considered the possibility that women were better in a test trip to a farmer's market because they were more used to doing the shopping.

Hey, in a culture where women are seen as responsible for doing the food shopping - and have been brought up by female figures doing the same thing - don't you think women might have acquire certain skills? That they might just have been socialised into certain behaviour and abilities?

The additional simplistic implication that there's a genetic reason for an awareness of calorie content in food amongst Californian women (hey, is our culture obsessed with female diet sometimes?) is laugh-out-loud silly.

Apparently the possibility of culture influence was just to outrageous or boring to mention - particularly when we can instead pretend a study of 86 people is convincing evidence of a link between genes and social behaviour. Golly, isn't "science" fun?

amnesty confirms support for access to abortion

Amnesty have gone ahead with their laudable decision to support women's access to abortion, a move triggered by the increasing use of rape as a weapon against women in conflict zones.

(Given that this decision is primarily about the consequences of rape, can you guess which word is missing from the Daily Mail's coverage of the story, which chooses to focus on the predictable objections of a Catholic bishop?)

migrants

"They" come over here, taking our low-paid jobs:

More than three quarters of EU migrants are in low paid jobs, typically earning between £4.50 and £5.99 an hour - suggesting most are filling jobs which British citizens may be reluctant to take.

It's just outrageous that they're our teachers, classroom assistants, nurses and care workers.

slim chance

The rhetoric surrounding the Human Rights Act takes a fresh twist today as various leader comments attempt to plot the rights of victims (justified, honourable, just) against previous diatribes against a culture of victimhood (frivolous, self-serving, unjust). It's all the harder for the fact that the Human Rights Act has been the fall-guy each time - either accused of favouring the criminal over the victim, or empowering time-wasters to claim disproportionate compensation. And so the slim chance that anyone would recognise that all rights and freedoms are always negotiated against those of others (or that single high-profile cases don't give anything like an accurate picture of the law) grows slimmer with every day.

weak ass

And then there's The Telegraph doing the same thing:

A BBC children's presenter has said "everyone at CBBC (the corporation's children's strand) is either gay or childless and don't like kids". Kirsten O'Brien, a regular on children's television and radio for more than a decade, made the remarks during her stage show Confessions of a Children's TV Presenter at the Edinburgh Festival.

"Made the remarks"? She's not giving an interview, or a press statement. It's part of her act - when she stands up to say things in the hope of laughter. We call this "stand-up": an art form slightly above street mime and slightly below sketch comedy.

For f*cks sake, this is the best criticism of the BBC that can be managed? Children's TV presenter makes tongue-in-cheek joke in order to mildly shock audience who can't believe they've paid over £10 to sit in a cupboard that's apparently also a Fringe venue?

responsible citizens (and further fun with statistics)

From the department of lies, damn lies and statistical spin, here's the Mail reporting on attitudes towards Muslims in Britain. On the question asking if it is possible to be a Muslim and a Britain, the Mail writes:

A third of Britons believe: 'You can't be British AND Muslim'

More than four out of ten people believe it is impossible to be both a Muslim and a responsible British citizen, a new poll on attitudes to Islam showed yesterday.

The survey - by Harris Interactive - actually says this:

Do you believe it is possible to be both a Muslim and a Briton?

YES 59%
NO 29%
NOT SURE 13%

(Rounding means totals do not equal 100)

So let's peel back the layers of spin.

First, there's the emphasis on the minority who disagree, rather than the substantial majority who agree. Even if every person who said they weren't sure decided to disagree, the majority of those polled would still think it's possible to be British and Muslim. The claim that "more than four of ten people believe it is impossible to be both a Muslim and a responsible British citizen" isn't merely inaccurate - it's wholly false.

Then there's the insertion of the word "responsible" in the Mail's article - a word which appears nowhere in the Harris poll. The implication is that Muslim identity is somehow incompatible with responsibility, inferring that British citizenship demands the abdication of any other ethnic or (non-Christian) religious identity. It also points to the unspoken category of irresponsible citizens - those who are insufficiently puritan in their sense of identity.respo

It's also worth nothing that this and other similar questions are only being asked about Muslims: it's apparently not worth asking is anyone would approve, for example, if their child married a Christian or a Jew. In other words, the appearance of antipathy towards Muslims is increased by singling them out - and disregarding other ethnic and religious tensions which exist across Europe. A poll asking about attitudes towards Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and certain areas of Scotland, for example, could produce similar concerns about religious identity and citizenship.

just kidding

It may be a surprise but not everything said by comedians on stage is entirely true. Well, not a surprise to you, but confusing enough for the Daily Mail:

BBC children's TV hosts 'are either gay or childless... and they don't like kids', claims children's presenter

Actually, "jokes" childrens' presenter would be more accurate given that she was doing stand-up at the time. This is on a par with the screeching revelation that "An Irishman, an English man and Scot went into a pub.."

What next? Director General says bad word after stubbing toe?

the spelling police

Note to everyone: bemoaning the failure of school-leavers to have a
grasp of the "three R's" is, at best, horribly ironic given that only
one of them actually starts with the letter R.

popular terrorism

While extended coverage of the BBC's apparent decision to scrap a Muslim suicide bomber plot-line from the medical drama Casualty is a two-fer for right-leaning commentary (political correctness plus BBC liberal bias), rather more attention should be paid to the replacement story: an explosion caused by animal rights extremists.

The sum total of acts of violence and threats of violence - the working definition of terrorism - carried out by animal rights extremists in the UK far exceeds those carried out by any Muslim groups during the all new war on terror. Some campaigns of harassment (including the destruction of property, death threats to individuals and families, and the defilement of human remains) stretch back for more than a decade.

Maybe it's the lack of large scale, cinematic plots or the absence of an overarching link to the war on terrah, but the British media have never quite managed to identify animal rights extremists as domestic terrorists.

That's not to say that 7/11 didn't happen (insert standard boilerplate recognition of terrorism here) but that we're far more comfortable identifying certain kinds of extremists as terrorists than others. Can you even imagine what it would take for people who threaten abortion clinics, for example, to be labelled that way in the mainstream press?

ommmmm

There's a certain zen bliss to be gained from reading the Daily Mail, as your eyes flit from stories declaiming the BBC's supposed fear of offending Muslims to the news that a seven year old from Manchester had been stopped three times on his trip to Florida on suspicion of terrorism. The failure to depict Muslims as terrorists in BBC dramas is a sign of craven political correctness; security alerts triggered by a small photogenic boy with the name of a terror suspect are a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction. The situation where a small child has to be instinctively treated as potential enemy of state has, of course, absolutely nothing to do with the depiction of his religious and ethnic community in popular culture.

parochial

While there might be some kind of indigenous culture who are also in the path of a hurricane, it only really counts as headline news if British tourists are also on the scene.

still alive..

..but incredibly busy. It's the Festival season in Edinburgh and my two jobs have become three..

the scotsman: protestors are terrorists

My earlier suggestion that certain papers were merely implying that environmentalists at Heathrow were potential terrorists was clearly far too subtle. Here's The Scotsman headline:

Heathrow protesters 'are terrorists'

Really? Then we'd better arrest them now, then, and charge them using the evidence carefully collected by the Scotsman. Oh, wait.. hang on.. it's the rhetorical use of the verb "to be," conjugated in the "total bollocks" tense.

You'll be entirely shocked to discover that the quote marks in the headline don't actually refer to anything anyone directly said, only concern for the use of counter-terror legislation to detain protestors. They're quote marks in the non-quotation sense so beloved of a certain breed of sub-editor. Still, why let that stop anyone from jumping to the conclusion that protestors "are terrorists"?

It's remarkably close to the approach adopted before the anti-poverty demonstrations in Edinburgh to coincide with LiveAid. To summarise: assume the worst, go straight to accusing peaceable protestors of breaking the law, infer impending chaos that will consume country, do not collect £200.

As before, the overwhelming majority of peaceful protestors are either ignored or scolded for crimes they have not committed.

Mark Bullock, managing director of BAA Heathrow, said the airport operator would take all necessary steps to protect staff and travellers during one of its busiest weeks.

"With the current terrorism threat, keeping Heathrow safe and secure is a very serious business," he said. "Any action taken by the protesters that distracts us or the police from this task is irresponsible and unlawful."

Any action that distracts? That's an awfully broad (i.e. wholly misleading) reading of the law, which would appear to include very funny jokes and strongly worded banners in interesting fonts.

Meanwhile:

THOUSANDS of people who live around Heathrow airport will be displaced if plans for a third runway are approved, an action group warned yesterday.

Presumably those people - a sizeable proportion of whom are apparently approaching retirement and may well be priced out of the rising house market - can house themselves with the "everyday miracle of flight" and the smiles of sun-warmed Inuit children (as featured in The Times).

hugging away carbon emissions

Today's pre-spin of choice is that environmental protestors at Heathrow are prospective terrorists, and even if they aren't, they should treat the right to protest as a privilege, not a right, because air travel is so super. That's actually the sum total of the argument in the Times' leader comment:

This protest is happening because aircraft are conspicuous carbon emitters (18 million tons of carbon dioxide a year from those fuelled at Heathrow alone) and they emit it at high altitude, where it is thought to trap more heat than at sea level. Even so, aviation can make a powerful argument for exceptional status in the struggle to reduce emissions.

It has a unique claim to have changed the world for the better as a lubricant of global capitalism, a window on foreign cultures and a simple enhancer of lives, whether by enabling Alaskan schoolchildren to see the sun in winter, or allowing families separated by work, migration and marriage to keep in touch.

Somehow the magical smiles of children means that we can ignore any possible cost associated with air travel. Somehow, while the right to protest seems to be negotiable, the right to cheap flights is immutable - thanks to the hugs-to-C02 exchange principal.

Air travel is not simple or miraculous; it is complicated and consequential, and pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.

further answers to simple questions.

Can a blind psychic really see into the minds of murderers?

No. No, she cannot, but we're still going to give her book tens of thousands of pounds of free advertising. The end.

(If she can indeed talk to the dead, can she please find out where the corpse of journalism has been stashed?)

christopher hart: I know nothing about what makes you laugh

Shorter Christopher Hart: I don't like Monty Python, therefore the millions of people who do are idiots.

Ah, the smell of a hack with an axe to grind. He says it, therefore it must be true! Anyone who thinks that comedy might be deeply subjective - and that different things make different people laugh - is clearly some kind of terrorist, and a toffee-nosed git to boot.

Straw-man of the day?

This weirdly persistent cult of Python is yet another unfortunate by-product of tyrannical media dominance by that cosseted Sixties generation: men now approaching their own 60s who still dress like 12-year-old skateboarders, in an inept attempt to demonstrate that they are still in touch "wid de yoof".

Unfortunately, the only thing their slogan-bearing T-shirts demonstrate is their middle-aged tubby figures. They stalk the corridors of the BBC in their beige cargo pants and colourful trainers, planning yet another interminable Python tribute programme for BBC4.

I'm only suprised they weren't signing visas for immigrants, spitting at the Queen and burning the flag.

The idea that the attitudes of members of the public in a public vote (voting publicly for the thing they like) might make such straw-men strangely reflective of popular sentiment is best ignored. Otherwise you'd end up thinking that Hart was some kind of dead par.. vast and unwieldy hack.

abortion and human rights

I'm combing through a few archives in order to write something meaningful, but for now read the Independent's three stories on Amnesty's decision to include access to abortion within its definition of human rights ( 1, 2, 3).

The Catholic Church's opposition to Amnesty's change of position is predictable (the news that the Pope will not compromise on abortion not being news at all but exactly what you'd predict), though the exact nature of what they're rejecting isn't spelt out. Amnesty's advocacy for abortion rights extends to women who have been raped, are a victim of incest or face health risks.

Despite the Independent's front-page, this isn't the Catholic Church versus Amnesty. This is the Catholic Church versus women's health.

For past discussion of the issue on this blog and Amnesty's work on rape, go here.

overdue

The announcement that ITV News is cutting out the gimmicks is long overdue: the patronising use of graphics and captions onscreen reached a nadir a few years back when we were invited to enter a virtual school gym to imagine, live, what it must be like to be the children held hostage at Beslan. Ugh.

clumsy unscientific writing, the daily mail and glass-houses: mix your own metaphor here

It takes a cocktail of hutzpah and gall for the Daily Mail to jeer at anyone for "clumsy unscientific writing ," mere days after declaring that scientists have discovered the "Homer hormone" - also described as the "Homer gene," even though genes and hormones are every so slightly (entirely) different.

In fact, you'd think the combined coverage of alternative therapies, junk science and the MMR vaccine by the Mail would cause some kind of ironic implosion in the presence of such an accusation. Sadly, no.

trials are for other people

In case you were wondering whether or not Richard Littlejohn was human scum or not, there's his declaration that five Guantanamo detainees with British residency rights can "can stay there until they rot," stating:

Let's say I'm wrong - which I'm not - and all of these men are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, even if these men are totally innocent - and Littlejohn's super-secret access to classified evidence he refuses to produce proves otherwise - they should remain in prison indefinitely without trial because they are insufficiently British by his personal criteria.

Ladies and gentleman, the phantom of the liberal press.

drugs are still bad, m'kay?

For a complete beginner's guide to media spin, read the Scotsman's story on the Scottish Health Executive's drug awareness campaign. While the campaign appears to have had some partial success (with 73% more likely to think about the risks of cocaine), the Scotsman leads with:

Anti-drug campaign 'makes us more likely to take it'

which emphasises the 12% who said they were more likely to consider taking cocaine after seeing the advert. Which - given that 58 per cent said it had not altered their likelihood of taking the drug - sounds more like proof of average human bloody-mindedness than evidence that the kidz are being lured into drugz by the manz.

Anyway, isn't getting people to think about real risks and make their own decisions really the best outcome? Libertarian lurkers, back me up?*

*Obviously, I've failed to demand the end of all (drug) law and the creation of a truly "free" society where everything is juuuust peachy and righteous, but apart from that I'm right, okay? And yes, this is parody.

oh noes

It's taken a few months but..

THE UK Independence Party was ordered to forfeit more than £18,000 yesterday after it admitted breaking rules on donations to political parties. The money was given by a private donor who was not on the electoral register, and by a company registered overseas.

Whoops. There will now of course be a series of articles in the Telegraph, Times, Mail etc. about shady foreign powers investing in British politics. Or not, as the case may be.

baby steps

For the meat-world acquaintances amongst you: I have a new job which, while only minimally better pay, is hopefully going to be far less stressful. The result is that I may have to change my blogging habits to suit - hopefully this won't mean stopping altogether, but switching to less regular updates. Or not. I have no idea. I'm really just wasting your time right now. Just keep reading, if only for the sake of very tiny animals.

nasty and NICE

Accepting for a moment that there could be something wrong with NICE's decision that a device to stop arteries from arrowing isn't cost-effective, it would probably help if someone could point to the error in NICE's evidence.

As it stands, we just get the accusation of "bias" that never actually challenges the material, clinical evidence presented to NICE, or the way in which NICE assessed that evidence.

Sure, the group who assessed the evidence had previously argued that one form of the treatment was not cost-effective but - guess what - maybe they were right. Maybe, in looking at the evidence again two years later, they drew the same conclusion because so little had changed. If there's a flaw in their methods, let's hear about that rather than the declaration of "disappointment" and the as-yet unsupported claim that the "jury was nobbled."

As a foot-note, the "stents" being touted as the life-saving, miracle cure, heal-all etc. etc. were also the subject of a series of stories on research showing that in certain circumstances drug-coated stents could cause heart-attacks. It's almost as though medicine - and care of the human heart - was in some way complicated, and not a series of black-and-white headline judgements.

hall of pundit mirrors

While the level of interest in female political cleavage shows no signs of ebbing, it's helpful to remember that such obsession isn't purely a product of bloggers - either here or in the US. Supposedly professional pundits have quite happily written about Jacqui Smith's appearance for weeks on end - and that commentary is only the most recent episode in a long tradition of judging professional women on their appearance, rather than their abilities.

Of course, we're now into the meta-breast posts, where journalists can perpetuate cleavage-gate by writing about the media's handling of it - and ingeniously describe bloggers who questioned the point of the story in the first place as "scoffing" at its legitimacy, as if to suggest that this is a real story after all. It's fair and balanced summary that never quite gets around to stating the glaringly obvious: politician in low-cut blouse does not the news make.

It doesn't matter, of course, because now we're all trapped, including you here reading this meta-meta-breast post. It's helpless, I tells ya.

the sex-ed generational divide (also, abstinence ed still does not work)

Seeking the most fair and balanced discussion of abortion, the Daily Mail chooses to fixate on the single 18-year old girl who has had six abortions. That she is in no way typical of young women seeking abortion - or that she did nothing illegal, or any detail of her personal circumstances - seems to escape mention.

As predicted almost a year ago to the day, critics of sex education are now pointing to the apparent lack of results for the money spent on improving sexual health as proof that sex education does not work. As was argued then, money set aside for sexual health actually has to be spent on improving sexual health, rather than as a stop-gap measure to fill financial deficits .

Meanwhile, an Oxford University review of US abstinence programmes confirms what we already know: abstinence programmes do not work. They do not stop people from having sex, and they do not improve sexual health:

The latest study, which included trials comparing young people attending abstinence-only programmes against those receiving no sex education, raises questions over whether they work in developed countries.

Researchers found none of the abstinence-only programmes had an impact on the age at which individuals lost their virginity, whether they had unprotected sex, the number of sexual partners, the rates of sexually transmitted diseases or the number of pregnancies.

One trial did show a short-term benefit with participants reporting that they were less likely to have had sex in the month following one abstinence-only programme. But the researchers said this finding was offset by six other trials that showed the programmes had no effect on the participants' recent sex lives.  

If you're looking for a reason why sex education doesn't work as well as it should - beyond the failure to actually spend the money promised for the vital services which support it - then try this story for size:

A third of Britons find talking with a new partner about condoms so embarrassing it puts them off using one at all, a survey has suggested.

So embarassed that they'd rather risk infection or pregnancy. And the rise in STIs looks like it might be fuelled by a generational divide:

Anne Weyman, chief executive of the FPA, said: "We have to ask why in the 21st Century when sex is so widely portrayed in British culture, talking about using condoms is still embarrassing."

She said that people in their 30s, 40s and 50s, who might be supremely confident talking about everything else in their lives, still struggled at the thought of talking about condoms.

It is this group that she would like to see targeted with safer sex campaigns. "Thirty-somethings are a forgotten generation. They received little sex and relationships education at school but grew up in an increasingly sexualised society.

In a horribly ironic way, it's the same generation that edits and writes newspapers which continually accuse younger people of being sexually irresponsible.

tom utley: man of straw

Tom Utley's rambling monologue of personal anecdotes which stands in for his column ends up here:

It's simply untrue to assert, as it does on the packet in my pocket: "Smoking seriously harms you and others around you." Really? On a country railway platform, in a howling gale?

Certainly, it's destroying my health - there's absolutely no question of it. But "seriously harms others around you"?

Utley's ingenious argument against passive smoking is apparently to use an example where there aren't going to be any other people around to breathe in the smoke. It's a pity that he stopped at a howling gale: I imagine that passive smoking isn't much of a problem while scuba-diving, kayaking down rapids or exploring outer-space.

Utley's stance seems to be that passive smoking is no risk for the simple reason that he doesn't believe in it. There's no appeal to reason, or scientific research - simply the statement of disbelief. It's an argument with the rhetorical skill of "you smell.. because you do."

Rather confusingly, Utley argues that the logical conclusion of the risk posed to smokers by cigarettes - which he whole-heartedly recognises - would have been a outright ban on smoking; the failure to take that step was political cowardice.

Then, having established the logic of such an argument, Utley returns to the idea that such a ban would be intolerable illiberal nannying. So the government is both a coward for not having acted strongly enough, and a nanny for having acted at all: Utley is a man who clearly likes to have his cake and smoke it, too.

Having by that point looped his own column twice and entirely unplugged his mind from the demands of reality, Utley fumes:

[Patricia Hewitt] doesn't believe, any more than I do, that if you sit in a hire car the day after someone has been smoking in it, your health is going to suffer in the slightest.

She probably doesn't believe it because she's never suggested she does, actually.

It's all topped off by the firm belief that no-on lied or dropped a manifesto promise until Labour came to power, proving that the only real qualification for writing a newspaper column in the Mail is to be on the receiving end of a cheque. Contact with the real world is a kind of optional extra.

helena frith powell: the grope of a stranger is the sign of his "healthy admiration"

Shorter Helena Frith Powell: women who get groped in public should be grateful of the attention.

Apparently, getting your bottom pinched is "not an aggressive act," demeaning or offensive to anyone but is in fact "a healthy, open sign of affection and admiration" and "the modern equivalent of a dance card." Any woman who doesn't agree with this decree - or objects to being groped while trying to do their job on live television - is just some kind of whining bitch.

Even if you express discomfort but take the matter no further, this too is proof that you are a pompous bitch:

While the "victim" has said that she does not wish to pursue the matter through the courts (how gracious!), she none the less has treated the incident with such po-faced pomposity that it would be a very brave officer indeed who instructed Ms Turton to take her grievances elsewhere.

The correct response would have been to offer fulsome praise for such "open" and "affectionate" communication of desire - because nothing says communication like someone grabbing your ass from behind.

It's one of those moments where the Mail's sexual morality police reveal one of their standardised get-out-of-jail-free cards: women who object to male "attention" should "grow up" and stop taking themselves so seriously. In fact, they should be flattered - while remembering that they should stop wearing short-skirts and make-up (or going out to pubs by themselves) because this just entices men, who can't help themselves.

charm school

Some stories are a signal for general idiocy:

Frank Sinatra advised in the song Wives and Lovers: "Don't send him off, with your hair still in curlers. You may not see him again." However, it seems that British women couldn't care less after a survey showed they are the least likely to put effort into their appearance for the sake of men.

They have the lowest levels of concern in the world for what husbands, boyfriends and other male observers might think, with only 51 per cent caring whether men liked their appearance, the study said.

Of course, no-one would ask the same question of men - men are for looking, women are for being looked at, so any deviation from that script is a surprise. I particularly like how "other male observers" are included as a presumptive audience for women - where there are men, there must also be women making sure they look good for them.

However, it's the comment section where male entitlement pops up:

Just goes to prove that British women are very self obsessed, hence they are tending to look less and less feminine and more and more fake!

Anyone who's ever been on holiday to another country will see that women here make no effort compared to others.

A bit of slap and a few less cakes wouldn't hurt.

British women are a disgrace. Too many mammoth sizes, badly dressed, particularly in the home. They think casual means scruffy. They lack elegance. Look to the Spanish, French or Chinese women if you want to understand. British women are also incredibly aggressive, rude and have absolutely no idea on the meaning of femininity. Marriage is in crisis mainly because men cannot stomach the thought of committing themselves to these people for the rest of their lives. We men need a get-out clause.

And it's apparently surprising that women aren't interested in what this kind of man thinks.

"spare-part babies" and the slippery slope fallacy

Ruth Dudley Edwards' latest column puts her firmly in the first division for hackery , as she expresses shock at a term invented by her own newspaper:

Abortion for all. IVF at 60. Now 'spare part' babies. What a dangerous path we are treading...

Another day, another terrible ethical dilemma. In response to the draft Human Tissue and Embryo Bill published in May, a committee of MPs and peers want us to give the nod to a vast increase in what are known as "saviour siblings" - more - shockingly termed "spare-part babies" - born to meet the specific needs of elder, ill siblings by providing a tissue match that could cure them.

That "spare-part baby" is the Mail's distorted catchphrase of the week - used by absolutely no-one else - warns us that we're into scaremongering territory marked out by the elusive ellipsis:

Those of us who see the ethical slopes of reproductive medicine becoming ever more dangerously slippery can expect to be accused of heartlessness. Are these developments not designed to cure diseases suffered by young children?

The answer is, of course, yes . . . for now.

The suggestion being, of course, that soon we'll be killing babies in the street in order to whiten our teeth.

In order for the slippery slope or "thin end of the wedge" argument to make any persuasive sense, one set of events has to set precedent for a second set of events - making them more likely. There is, of course, absolutely no evidence of a "downward" ethical slide other than that darkly suggested by "... for now" : it's merely going to happen because we speculate it might.

It's the same speculation eagerly proposed by CORE (mistakenly referenced as CREW yesterday) and repeated without challenge by Edwards:

A campaign group called Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE) - which believes in absolute respect for the integrity of the human embryo - challenged the decision, claiming the logical next step would be to permit the testing of an embryo to see if it had the colouring or intelligence its mother wanted.

That step is, in fact, far from logical: the current treatments have absolutely nothing to do with selecting the social characteristics of a new born. The current procedure is only thought ethical because it has a significant chance of improving the health of a sibling.

CORE's argument is a clear illustration of the fallacy of the slippery slope argument - in that an entirely different set of criteria would have to be introduced for the "logical next step" to be possible. In other words, it's not the logical next step at all.

Edwards seems to be taking a leaf from Melanie Phillips book and assuming that because something is technically possible, it also means that it is highly likely - so likely as to be all but inevitable. Consequently, we get this wild-eyed speculation:

Many leading members of the medical profession are already hell-bent on ensuring that only the perfectly healthy are born. [...] How long before designer babies become the norm?

Not long, is my guess. Just as middle-class Indians have female foetuses aborted for social reasons - thus causing a demographic catastrophe - so the selfish in our society will want nothing but the best from their offspring: perfect health, beauty and brains.

The notion that you love and cherish whatever baby you produce will become a concept of the past, as parents draw up lists of the key features they want the labs to help provide.

Dudley Edwards not only confuses "perfect health" (a phrase only a pundit would use) with social characteristics like beauty and intelligence, but creates the phantom of eugenics obsessed doctors and parents. She also assumes that "designer babies" are inevitable - asking not if such a practice will become common but instead asking when.

It's one of the stranger rhetorical twists that such outpourings of moral concern arrive at: not only are we going to hell in a handcart, but there's nothing we can do about it, rendering the demand for something to be done as a meaningless gesture.