ghosts more convincing than god?

Down at the bottom of an Ipsos MORI poll on belief, there's this:

Q30 Do you consider yourself to be a religious person?

Yes 37%
No 60%
Don't know 2%

Q31 Do you consider yourself to be a spiritual person?

Yes 36%
No 62%
Don't know 2%

Q32 Do you believe in God?

Yes 56%
No 36%
Don't know 8%

So only just over half of those surveyed said they believed in god, and only a third thought of themselves as spiritual. Slightly more people believe in the existence of ghosts and guardian angels than of god (38% to 36%).

It would be nice if this was kept in mind the next time it's asumed that the leaders of organised religions should be given special prominence in political debate. Another one for the "ordinary people to blame" vaults, perhaps.

peter hitchens: I am not that bright

It seems unlikely that I'm going to run out reasons to think that Peter Hitchens is an idiotic blow-hard. In the middle of research for something else, I discover Hitchen's diatribe on Philip Pullman: This is the most dangerous author in Britain.

The basic argument seems to be Christian morality tales are okay but non-Christian morality tales are an unacceptable form of brain-washing. For this reason, and for daring to criticise organised religion, Pullman is "the most dangerous author in Britain." Apparently, it's incitement to atheism which is the greatest threat imaginable to the nation.

I particularly like this bit:

None of this makes sense. If there is no God, then who makes the rules of the supernatural world which Pullman creates, in which people have visible souls called daemons; magic knives cut holes between the worlds and spectres devour life? How is it that the dead live on in a ghastly underworld of unending misery and torment, yet there is no Heaven?

That's because it's fiction, you heaving moron. It's a made-up story for children, not an accurate metaphysical account of reality. Still, I look forward to Hitchen's investigation into the gold missing from the end of rainbows.

It is, of course, mildly ironic that Hitchens acts exactly like a bully with a pulpit.

nadie dorries: still wrong, still a hypocrite

The Guardian reports that the Science and Technology Committee have decided against recommending a change in week-limits on abortion, and will propose changes to the requirement for signatures from two doctors for early stage abortions.

The interesting detail is this:

The report, expected to run to around 30 pages, was being printed overnight after MPs on the committee debated last minute changes late into Monday evening.

It was not unanimous, with Bob Spink, a Conservative MP and opponent of abortion, voting against. Nadine Dorries, another Tory anti-abortion campaigner, was not present at the meeting, the Guardian understands.

This is probably because Dorries has released her own "minority report" - which, amongst other errors, repeats the lie about a link between breast cancer.

Dorries also repeats the baseless smear against all those who are pro-liberalisation (or support the status quo), claiming that their positions are due to "financial vested interests in the abortion issue." It's a gross, unsupported claim which verges on libel.

Concerned that hypocrisy might be going out of fashion, Dorries has reverted back to her initial position on personal beliefs. While her most recent claim in the Guardian was that she was only interested in science, not belief, Dorries once more protests:

Of the 18 witnesses chosen, 13 were pro-liberalisation and only 5 pro-restriction. This seems unfair given that public opinion is very much in favour of reducing the number of abortions.

Well, Nadine, it's the science and technology committee, not the public opinion committee. You can't rig evidence to fit what you claim is popular sentiment - and you tend to get caught when you do.

As a whole, Dorries seems very confused about the nature of scientific evidence, claiming the parts that she disagrees with have been given too much attention, and the parts she likes not enough. There's even concern that the "grass-roots" of various organisations have not been consulted, once more proving an inability to tell the difference between evidence and opinion-polling.

Oh, and want to know where the Mail's "Doctor Death" smear of Evan Harris comes from? No other than Dorries, blogging on the 25th October:

I was on with Dr Evan Harris, the Lib Dem MP who believes there is no evidence to stop aborting babies once they reach 20 weeks. He's also the MP who campaigns for euthanasia. He has a nickname in the House amongst the other MPs it's Dr ......? Dr...? Do you know, I can't remember he second bit, Dr...? Oh it will come to me. Anyway, he took longer in make-up than I did, which is saying something. I was begining to worry they may replace us with another item.

What a class act. Perhaps for an encore, Dorries will explain that Harris smells bad and has boy cooties.

I pity anyone who has Dorries for an MP.

daily mail attempts hatchet-job on MP evan harris: "too honest and transparent"

Leo McKinstry at The Mail goes for a double-spread hatchet-job on MP Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat who drew attention to the anti-choice evidence rigging at last week's abortion hearing. Calling him "Dr. Death" for his support of abortion and euthanasia, McKinstry tries his best to make Harris into a left-wing monster.

"Unmarried and without children" (like all those Catholic religious leaders who preach on marriage) Harris is framed as holding extreme, minority opinions:

But instead of arguing for a tightening of the law, as much of the public wants in view of new evidence that foetuses can survive after just 20 weeks, Harris has called for greater liberalisation.

He also advocates an end to the requirement that any abortion requires the consent of two doctors, arguing that the procedure could easily be carried out by a nurse or even in the home by taking a pill.

The Health Service, he declares, must remove "false barriers to terminations".

The problem here is that all of the above opinions are also shared by the British Medical Association and numerous other medical groups. Evans' stance actually represents a majority of medical opinion - and not "radical political ideology." It's not much of a "gotcha" quote: is the Mail suggesting we should keep false barriers to abortion?

He's accused of being "aggressively secular" and "attacking anyone - particularly Christians - who allows their faith to influence their attitude towards abortion" - which is a strange criticism to make when you're arguing that new evidence should be the reason for a change in the law. It's also the closest the Mail has come in a few weeks to arguing that laws should be faith-based (all the while shrieking about the dangers of Sharia law).

Harris then comes under fire for being too much in favour of freedom of speech (for having campaigned against the Government's proposals to outlaw incitement to religious hatred) and for being too honest and transparent (for revealing that his girlfriend works for Bpas, one of the country's leading providers of abortion services, ahead of evidence hearings). In the Mail's view, his willingness to disclose his association with pro-choice organisations (while others were hiding their link to anti-choice groups) makes him unreliable.

This - along with being "fixated on work" and dressing in "a more proletarian jacket and odd trousers" - makes him unreliably pious. That's right: the Mail actually attacks Harris for "ideological certainty." This from the paper that regularly claims the country has lost its moral core and is going to hell in a handcart.

There's also some space to repeat speculation about his sexuality:

In Oxfordshire he lives like the eternal student bachelor, which has given rise to baseless rumours about his sexuality - not least because he is President of the Liberal Democrats Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights and vice-President of the Lesbian and Gay Humanist Association.

In fact, Harris has been married once, with the union ending in divorce in 1997.

He later had a tragically doomed relationship with an interior designer from Ireland, Liz O'Hara, who developed a malignant terminal brain tumour in 2003.

It's not quite life as an "eternal student bachelor" if you've been married, and have a girlfriend. Presumably, if Harris had remarried after the death of his first wife, this would be proof of his insincerity. Either way, it's the most nonsensical piece of speculation.

Why such patently ridiculous overkill in the attempt to smear Harris? Why make claims which are patently ridiculous? A segment of the socially-conservative right is frothing with rage that Harris (and the rest of the science committee) actually caught the religious right in the act of trying to present distorted evidence on abortion. It's revenge, pure and simple.

lessons in bad PR

Top tip for Brew PR - while you might think it's awfully cool to include bloggers when sending out press releases for your clients, I have absolutely no interest in the news that someone has hired a new "Named Account Executive." Big fecking whoop.

It's possible that I'm out of the loop, and that the hottest blogs have the goss on recent corporate hires, but it mainly sounds like a PR company that hasn't the faintest idea about bloggers.

The irony, of course, is that Brew PR making the announcement on behalf of what it describes as "the most popular online social space built entirely to interconnect and engage the lesbian community."

Kinda of makes you'd wish they'd picked a different project to show they're tone deaf about the internet..

further great moments in british journalism

There's a quiet efficiency to the gutterfucks of the British tabloid press.

Step one: spend Sunday inventing the "Tapas 7," whose silence on the matter of Madeleine McCann's disappearance is thought to be suspect because a retired deputy chief constable (not involved in the case) "feels" something is wrong. He has no evidence, just pure speculation and the front page of a Sunday paper.

Step two: report that the "Tapas 7" have responded angrily to the suggestion of a conspiracy of silence.

Voila! That's two days of front page stories without having to any research or reporting. Tabloid editors must jump for joy at the news of a missing photogenic child: it's a free pass to write just about anything about just about anyone.

stacking the UK abortion enquiry evidence (reality has a pro-choice bias)

Last week's claims of anti-Christian bias at the abortion science hearings now look like the squeals of someone caught trying to rig the evidence for a Parliamentary committee. Right at the centre: our new best friend, Nadine Dorries.

Here's the chronology:

1. Nadine Dorries writes on her blog, October 23rd:

From the 18 witnesses to give evidence, I could only identify three who could be classed as pro-life, i.e. would wish to support a reduction. All other witnesses were very definitely pro-choice, either from the perspective of which ever establishment they represented, or as a matter of personal opinion.

Following a discussion last week at a committee meeting the Chairman very kindly granted my request that two other witnesses should be included to even up the balance - although it is still heavily weighted in the other direction.

2. The week of hearings begins, with the Guardian reporting that certain members are asking witnesses about their affiliation to religious and campaign groups.

Dr Trevor Stammers of the Christian Medical Fellowship writes to the Guardian and accuses MP Evan Harris of making "unfounded slurs" and of ideological bias. Josephine Quintavalle of CORE (Comment on Reproductive Ethics) also writes to the Guardian and complain about the suggestion that Christians have formed some kind of conspiracy to conceal their allegiances. Both represent strongly anti-choice groups.

3. Evan Harris responds, arguing witnesses must declare interests - particularly when they are testifying outside of their areas of expertise.

4. Nadine Dorries writes to the Guardian, accusing Harris of anti-faith prejudice and declaring:

All witnesses have been called to the committee on the basis of scientific papers that they have submitted, not as a result of their faith, or non-faith. I have no interest if any of the witnesses called are Muslim, Jew, Christian or secular humanist - it is enough for me that their scientific papers are submitted, considered by the committee's advisers and then selected to give evidence.

And that's about a week after contentedly reporting she's managed to stack the panel with more pro-life witnesses (making her a liar or a hypocrite).

5. The Guardian reveals that - as Harris suggested - witnesses had omitted to disclose affiliations to Christian and campaign groups, and had testified on subjects outside their expertise in the guise of informed opinion:

Six UK medical experts who submitted scientific evidence to an influential inquiry by MPs into the UK's abortion laws did not reveal links to anti-abortion groups. [...]

Chris Richards, a consultant paediatrician at Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle gave evidence to the committee on October 15. He did not list any affiliations in his written submission, but in response to the request he disclosed he was director of the anti-abortion group Foundation for Life and an organisation promoting abstinence, Lovewise. During the oral session he gave evidence on the supposed link between breast cancer and abortion - a link that has been widely refuted scientifically - even though this is not within his area of expertise as a paediatrician.

So that's at least one supposedly expert witness giving ideologically skewed (if not entirely false) - testimony that just happens to align entirely with the agenda of a group which he leads.

I can't help but wonder which of the witnesses whose evidence will now be re-assessed (or ignored as outside of their area of expertise) were only called because Nadine Dorries demanded it. Hmm.

tabloid media narratives: gardasil

Fresh debate from the Have Your Say section of the Daily Express website:

Appalling abuse of Donkeys, should it stop now?

Always a tricky question. Now, or later? Hmmm.. Still, make way for the big guns:

SHOULD SCHOOLGIRLS BE GIVEN JAB AGAINST CERVICAL CANCER?

You might recognise the familiar stench of scaremongering speculation, aided by a fishing expedition email sent out via Response Source on Friday afternoon asking for comment:

AS the government announces today that schoolgirls in England will be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer from September 2008 there is growing evidence from the US, where a similar drug is already being used that there can be severely detrimental effects - effects no one appears to have mentioned today as the drug Gardasil is being heralded as a miracle cure.

Uh, no. Not a miracle cure, it's a vaccine. It doesn't cure cancer, and the "miracle" label is a tabloid invention. In fact, it's the traditional circle-jerk: media creates narrative of wonder-drug, then writes story revealing - shock horror! - about how wonder-drug didn't live up to claims of miracle cure. Guess what: all drugs carry risks of side-effects.

There's also the suggestion that the US report is about a similar drug. Well, wow similar? Different? Not Gardasil at all?

Earlier this month another eight deaths were connected to Gardasil according to documents released by the an American health pressure group. And there is also evidence surfacing of the drug having other severe side effects.

I'm writing an 800wd news story on the side that today's government announcement didn't cover at all and would like to hear from peopll [sic] in the health sector who have their own concerns about the drug.

Also, is the drug going to encourage young girls to have sex at an earlier age and more of it?

You might notice that this last bit has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed side-effects of the drug: it's just an opportunity for some pro-cancer, anti-sex freakout.

So, without being given any details about the information that has been released - and faced with confusion as to whether it concerns Gardasil, or not - I'm invited to state my opinion, regardless of my acquiantance with fact - and without being told that no direct connection between Gardasil and those deaths has been established.

You might wonder, then, what kind of people respond to such appeals: a cursory check reveals that it's the same suspects, again and again. My personal favourite HPV "expert" is Dr John Oakley, a West Midlands GP who is continually quoted as saying that the trials for Gardasil have been so limited that the children taking it would be like "guinea pigs".

You can find Oakley's media-friendly "guinea-pig" quote as recently as today's Telegraph, though I can find identical examples going back to June. He's quoted - using the exact same words - in the Sunday Express story which resulted from the fishing expedition detailed above.

Oakley, it would appear, has some association with JABS, the pressure group for parents who believe their chldren have been damaged by vaccines. Both he and a JABS representative tend to be quoted simultaneously, even though no mention is made of such a link. He also offers single dose vaccines for rubella, measles and the like at a private consultation fee of £45 per vaccine.

That's said not to dismiss his credentials as a GP - but he does seem to be the go-to-doctor for a journalist on a dead-line wanting to write a scarey and highly speculative story about vaccines. I'm not sure phoning up the experts and pressure groups who support the pitch of the story you've decided in advance really counts as journalism: at best, it's borderline hackery.

(It's also strange that the Sunday Express' news of such a terrifying health risk should follow the reassurance on Friday afternoon that "the side-effects can include a sore arm and a mild temperature." That reassurance, incidentally, comes from Nicola McCafferty of the Daily Express. Oops.

Gardasil certainly seems to have one known-side effect: confusion and irrationality in a high proportion of "health" journalists who try to write about it. Oh, and and a hat-tip to my friend in the city who sends me Response Source emails. Thanks, L!

Final thought: the number of reported side-effects and deaths "associated" with Viagra are enormous compared to those concerning Gardasil. The difference, though, is that accepting small risk in the name of rock-hard erections is fine and good, but any risk taken at all to avoid the deaths of women from cervical cancer is unacceptable because of all the underage sex that might happen. See? It makes perfect sense.)

dissent in echo canyon

Further fun from the Phillips comment section, now gradually filling up with people who can recognise hackery at twenty paces :

*Sigh* No Melanie, mother and father are NOT examples of homophobic language - LGBT people (of which I am one) are about 10% of the population) and I don't think that there is any harm in someone not assuming continually that because I am a mddle aged woman with kids that I am automatically married/ have a husband. I really CANNOT see how being mindful of assumptions is 'a law to discriminate against the majority'. As usual you are just making ridiculous sweeping statements as presumably that is what you get paid for.

ZING.

It's probably going to get a little harder to make sweeping, baseless statements when faced with a readership other than that of the Daily Mail.

army of more than one

It's rather nice to see people in Melanie Phillips' comment section at her Spectator blog demanding that she cite her sources (for the claim that drug use amongst under 16s is "surging") as well as gently mocking her general knee-jerk stance on drugs:

I started on milk and progressed to lager, god help me. For goodness sake ban milk. It's a gateway drink.

Heh.

short break

Away for a few days to visit friends and sit in on a radio recording. Back to posting early next week - in the meantime, there's always the inestimable archives: they simply cannot be estimated.

the fear and loathing of sex

As Unity at Ministry of Truth articulates in detail and at great length, the claim that laws which protect gay people from discrimination are an outrageous imposition leading towards dictatorship is a form of hysteria based in either ignorance or a deliberate misunderstanding of the law.

Central to this claim has been the notion that any and all criticism of homosexuality could result in a prison sentence - when even a minimal knowledge of the way the law handles incitement to hatred proves this to be false. With a twist of irony, while the claim that such law is the work of a devious cabal of lefist homosexualistas might be stupid, bigoted and untrue, it would not automatically result in time behind bars.

Unity has argued all this - and more - so instead I'll draw together the two threads of this month's moral panic: gay people and abortion, or more specifically, non-reproductive sex. Why do I summarise the two issues that way?

Just look at the rhetoric of the arguments we've been forced to endure. The notion of gay marriage has been presented as a threat to the family (and by some foam-specked individuals, as a threat to the endurance of the human race), as a mockery of the sacred union of man and woman.

That union is sacred, the creed declares, because it is life-giving. Or in other words, gay marriage is wrong because gay people can't have children. Sex, maintains the Catholic Church and a large number of other conservative religious groups, should only be attempted by sanctioned couples blessed by selected ministers.

The loathing of gay people - or the "gay lifestyle" - is tied to that imagery, of people who actually enjoy sex and aren't ashamed or afraid of expressing it. While it's the stereotype of promiscuous gay people that gets the most attention, the dismay directed at sex is about straight people, too, who dare to fuck with papal permission. It's straight people, too, who have the most to lose when faced with a crusade against access to contraception and abortion.

Most importantly, the idea that you can have sex and not get pregnant does not feature. Sex is always desperately consequential: disease, pregnancy, damaging to your ability to have actual relationships. (That's not to say that sex isn't consequential, but rather that unmarried sex isn't world-ending, each and every time.)

The rhetoric of those who oppose abortion draws on the same well of imagery - whose denial of contraception is the basis for the insistence that pregnancy must remain the unavoidable consequence of sex. As an experiment, try to name a pro-life group quoted in the media during the last month who are reliably pro-contraception.

It's not difficult - it's near impossible. The leading voices opposing abortion are the leading voices of conservative (religious) groups who also oppose contraception and sex education. The same groups who argue vociferously for the reduction in abortions and argue for women to be offered the choice of keeping a pregnancy to term also strenuously object to the notion that adults should be able to control their fertility ahead of that moment.

Even when those groups claim that some women are using abortion as a form of contraception, they still fail to recognise that actual contraception might be a viable alternative. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny.

religion not dead, but hardly looking healthy

There's some confusion between religion grabbing headlines and religion retaining public support in Ruth Gledhill's comment at The Times . In fact, you might argue that the increase in volume has been due to a sense of religious communities being "under attack" - which in actuality is just the reality of fewer people being prepared to have religious leaders dictate the contents of their lives. Clashes in the workplace and in the political sphere are emerging simply because people are no longer willing to mindlessly privilege religious beliefs ahead of any other kind of ethical code.

For context in the supposedly Christian UK, religious observance is down, and continues to go down. Fewer people go to church than ever before: in a survey by Teardrop , only a third of those who identifed as Christian had been to church in the last year for anything other than baptisms, weddings or funerals. That's on top of an overall drop in the proportion of the UK who identify as Christian at all - down to 53% from almost three-quarters who had in the last census in 2001.

You might also note that marriage - the issue over which so many religious spokesmen have been called upon to comment in the last few years - is no longer a primarily Christian event in the UK. It hasn't been for over 15 years. As mentioned in previous posts, the ONS states:

Since 1992, there have been more civil marriage ceremonies in England and Wales than religious ceremonies. In 2005, 65 per cent of marriages were solemnised by civil ceremonies.

While the US political landscape might be strongly influenced or even dominated by religion, the same cannot be said in the UK: a majority of the recent battles fought by conservative religious community here (over equality rights, gay adoption, sex education) have resulted in defeat.

hacks

Yawn - it's a pretty tired ploy to focus on one extremely limited local trial scheme and then immediately claim that the entire world is going to hell in a handcart. The small bright point is that Melanie Phillips holds off until the very last line before asking "whatever next?" even though that doesn't seem to include a future free of frantic, speculative scaremongering.

EDIT: Keith Waterhouse rouses from his bathchair by the fire to join in with a stream of consciousness ramble that, admittedly, makes Phillips appear restrained and articulate.

virtuous prejudice

And here's that couple, whose refusal to tolerate - let alone support - a potential gay teenager in their care is now being touted as proof of persecution.

With bizarre clarity, the Mail reports that the couple might have been forced to show support and understanding to a gay teenager, yet frames their refusal to help this particular category of vulnerable children as proof of their virtuous morality.

Remind me why I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?

nadine dorries: hypocrisy, in my own words

Nadine Dorries, writing on her blog last week about the abortion evidence hearings:

From the 18 witnesses to give evidence, I could only identify three who could be classed as pro-life, i.e. would wish to support a reduction. All other witnesses were very definitely pro-choice, either from the perspective of which ever establishment they represented, or as a matter of personal opinion.

Following a discussion last week at a committee meeting the Chairman very kindly granted my request that two other witnesses should be included to even up the balance - although it is still heavily weighted in the other direction.

Nadine Dorries, in a letter to The Guardian published today:

All witnesses have been called to the committee on the basis of scientific papers that they have submitted, not as a result of their faith, or non-faith. I have no interest if any of the witnesses called are Muslim, Jew, Christian or secular humanist - it is enough for me that their scientific papers are submitted, considered by the committee's advisers and then selected to give evidence.

So, that's Nadine 15/10 "There aren't enough pro-life witnesses so I demanded some more" (and that's before she's actually heard any testimony) versus Nadine 23/10 "All witnesses have been called on the basis of their science alone."

One is very, very interested in the witnesses' background and personal beliefs and the other declares - pish tosh - that such a thing couldn't be further from her mind. Nadine 23/10 is disgusted that you'd think such a thing of her - in fact, that's the kind of thing that characterises irrational, anti-faith MPs who attack religion.

So, either Dorries has had some kind of Road-to-Westminster conversion and changed her mind over the last seven days, or she is some kind of collossal, pants-on-fire liar in immediate danger of personal conflagration.

As Dorries herself comments, "yet further evidence as to why many members of the public have such low regard for politicians and members of parliament in particular."

selective ignorance

Irony is clearly not a strong point for the Pro-Life Alliance:

Julia Millington, political director of the ProLife Alliance, accused the Government of 'cherry-picking' evidence to fend off demands for a change in the law.

[...] "They appear to have focused on one study alone, without considering the incredible work being done by specialist neonatal units both nationally and internationally."

Making the accusation of cherry-picking while demanding policy be based on a certain group of cherry-picked specialist units sounds quite a lot like hypocrisy.

It is, incidentally, the whole ball-park. The vast majority of hospitals - who are not specialists, with specialist resources or staff - cannot even begin to approach the survival rates achieved by those few.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Keith O'Brien and Cardinal Corma Murphy O'Connor's open letter on the anniversary of the Abortion Act - calling for measures to reduce the number of abortions - would sound a lot more convincing if there was even a single mention of the existence of contraception.

Apparently, being "responsibly pro-life" means agreeing to run the risk of having children every time you have sex. It's almost as though controlling the sex-lives of adults has a higher priority than actually reducing the number of abortions.

those tiny troublemakers

A moment where the Mail's copy-editing falls down, but not in a way that you'd actually notice at first glance:

Ministers point in particular to a study of premature babies, which found that only 1 per cent born at 22 weeks survived to the age of six, been fiercely condemned by magistrates, whose courts are responsible for dealing with minor crime and anti- social troublemakers.

The link between abortion, premature babies and anti-social troublemakers sounds like a Mail exclusive waiting to happen.

adoption and the loathing of tolerance

While the conservative religious objection to gay adoption has always been framed as a problem with the parents, comment on the Today Programme from a couple leaving the fostering service after seven years reveals the distaste for gay (or even potentially gay) children:

"If we had a child in our care who thought they might they might be gay then we would have to promote homosexuality, we would have to take them to the gay association, we were even told that if the child fancied going out with someone we would have to encourage them and show them how to do it.. well, I've never known a child who wanted that instruction anyway."

(My transcript, listen here at around 11 minutes in.)

And so, disgust and loathing at even the idea of having to tolerate a young gay adult drives this couple from the fostering service.

Given that the "promotion of homosexuality" is the label used to describe anything that doesn't condemn gay people, this couple is actually complaining about being denied the right to berate their ward as a sinner for even thinking they might be gay.

Conservative religious groups campaigned for the right for their adoption agencies to reject gay people as potential foster parents; Christians who work as magistrates have demanded the right to be exempt from hearings which might place children with gay parents; the Christian Institute issued cards asking that children be left in a home rather than be placed with a gay family.


Despite all that, no individual or group has ever openly argued for the right to reject gay teenagers - which, when you consider how they feel about gay adults, is something of an anomaly.

Perhaps they don't believe that young people can actually be gay, or be confused about their sexuality. Rather more likely is that directly rejecting vulnerable children in favour of their own "moral" values might expose their hatred for what it is.

The argument that such family values campaigners are only protecting the interests of children, rather than their own, grows thinner with every day.

right to reply

An unexpected development: Melanie Phillips' blog is now being published at The Spectator.

Which, unlike her own site, has a comment section. Hmm..

spurious straw-man friday

Ruth Dudley-Edwards seems to be after Melanie Phillips' job - that, or it's Spurious Straw-man Friday:

Indeed, it is increasingly hard not to conclude that the West-loathing Left has become so besotted with the rights of minorities that it has lost all moral sense.

Theirs is a world where freedom of speech is dependent on spouting politically correct opinions - even if that means blaming the victims of terrorism and exonerating the suicide bombers.

You know, some days I can't visit a single left-of-centre blog without reading another thousand word epic about how much victims of terror are actually to blame, with their stupid non-fire-retardant hair and easily-punctured-by-shrapnel skin.

Or perhaps not.

Perhaps Dudley-Edwards is talking crap.

Perhaps Dudley-Edwards is spewing a few thousand hysterical words to make herself feel better for the fact that her own newspaper jumped on the media dog-pile. Actually, there's no "perhaps" to it, just the usual rhetorical car crash.

I have more than a little trouble with supposed defenders of free speech and debate like Dudley-Edwards who begin by labelling every opinion that they disagree with as "Leftist" or - horror of horrors - "politically correct" in an attempt to discredit and dismiss.

It helps to remember that Dudley-Edwards was last discussed here when she attacked Salman Rushdie for antagonising religious extremists, showing a lack of gratitude and failing to self-censor.

So, that's hypocrisy, straw-men and hysteria: are Dudley-Ewards and Phillips related?

should scientists declare religious affiliations in abortion debate?

There's been some revealing back and forth over the question of whether expert witnesses to this week's Parliamentary discussion on abortion should declare their (religious) interests.

It also seems likely that the unnamed committee member critcised (rather hypocritically) by Nadine Dorries for asking experts if they were pro-choice is the Liberal Democrat MP, Dr Evan Harris. Writing in today's Guardian in defence of the demand for disclosure, Harris argues:

Dr Stammers [of the Christian Medical Fellowship] asserts the fact that one contributor's (Professor John Wyatt's) membership of the CMF does not preclude him from being an expert neonatologist.

The fact is that his CMF activity is a factor that readers ought to be aware of when the professor writes on morally sensitive medical matters outside his area of expertise or clinical experience. The lack of transparency is actually even greater than the Guardian originally reported. No less than five other CMF activists - with far less expertise than Professor Wyatt (ie none) - all submitted evidence as "consultants" or "general practitioners" without declaring their interest.

Dr Stammers, in his letter, claims to agree that scientific expert witnesses need to be evidence-led, not ideologically or theologically driven, but claims that my "shameful" exposure of CMF tactics means that I am more ideologically biased than the CMF. The difference between MPs and select committee witnesses is that MPs are not claiming to be detached experts speaking only to the science and research base like our witnesses ought to be.

All of the above is particularly important, given the formal declaration that "the Committee [on Science and Technology] will not be looking at the ethical or moral issues associated with abortion time limits." Despire that, it seems the problem has been in separating cold hard facts from ethically (and religiously) charged opinion.

(Oh, and while I'm not trying to suggest that pro-choice experts are somehow exempt from shading their own presentations, at least they're not lying about cancer and trying to pass it off as science.)

sexual health spending in the NHS: you actually have to spend the money to see results

More bad news about the money set aside for sexual and public health services:

Two thirds of the money set aside by the NHS for treating obesity, alcohol abuse and sexually transmitted diseases in 2006-07 was spent on reducing deficits, a survey by the Association of Directors of Public Health has found. [...]

In London and in the East of England, 7 per cent of the money went into public health, with 93 per cent spent elsewhere.

This study examines spending on obesity, alcohol abuse and STDs - earlier reports suggest that the situtation for sexual health spending in particular is probably far worse. As reported in The Guardian and discussed here back in August:

A £300m programme to tackle England's epidemic of sexually transmitted infections is in danger of collapse because the money has been siphoned off by NHS trusts to reduce their financial deficits, government advisers warn today. [...] The survey found 51 PCTs had absorbed the entire allocation into the general budget this year, and 33 withheld some or most of the sexual health funding.

This situation should have been horribly predictable: to give extra money to NHS trusts while demanding that they clear deficits was only going to lead in one direction. Claiming that public health issues are a priority means absolutely nothing if you simultaneously insist on a higher priority.

Threatening trusts which do not balance their books with financial sanctions, for example, has only increased the pressure amongst managers to draw funds earmarked for a specific agenda to protect the future financial health of such trusts as a whole, regardless of the consequences to that particular agenda.

In other words, Labour - primarily under Patricia Hewitt's leadership of the ministry of Health - has prioritised the political goal of a balanced book over the success of its own health initiatives. It's an incredibly stupid political strategy because it entirely undermines the decision to increase spending in the NHS.

Critics of the government are able - quite accurately - to point to areas which should be showing improvement and argue that the government's policies are a failure, that extra money is just wasted, that over-management and central interference doesn't give results etc. etc.

More worryingly, reasoned and pragmatic health policies are undermined: the failure to actually spend money set aside for sexual health on sexual health leads people to assume that sexual health programmes don't work. We've been told that we spent £300 million, so where are the results?

Labour have created a situation where policy which might actually improve public health - and which has research to support that claim - is put in a position where it can only fail. This isn't about death by a thousand cuts; this is a situation where entire budgets have disappeared into the general coffer.

reality has a pro-choice bias?

Nadine Dorries' account of the ongoing abortion discussion remains less than persuasive. Blogging on Monday 15th ahead of the Science & Technology Committee meeting, Dorries complained that there were not enough pro-life experts being called to give to evidence:

From the 18 witnesses to give evidence, I could only identify three who could be classed as pro-life, i.e. would wish to support a reduction. All other witnesses were very definitely pro-choice, either from the perspective of which ever establishment they represented, or as a matter of personal opinion.

Following a discussion last week at a committee meeting the Chairman very kindly granted my request that two other witnesses should be included to even up the balance - although it is still heavily weighted in the other direction.

And then went on to complain on Tuesday that:

Unfortunately one member of the committee appears to feel it is appropriate that if he is aware that a witness has a faith that it should be disclosed. This appears to me to be rather ridiculous, as from now on I will ask every witness whether or not they are pro-choice.

It seems slightly hypocritical to complain that individuals acknowledge their pro-life position when Dorries herself has already sought to identity witnesses on those terms, and complained when there weren't enough that supported her position.

Rather more worrying about this kind of focus is the presumption that there should be some balance in the numbers of pro-choice and anti-choice witnesses, rather than an examination of the science as it stands. Reality, in the terms of this debate, may prove to have a pro-choice bias.

On that issue, I'm also less than impressed by Dorries' framing of the success of University College Hospital (London) in neonatal care. Complaining that the average survivial rate across the country paints a much less positive picture, Dorries writes that such figures don’t "in any way represent the true picture should a mother happen to give birth in a good hospital with a good neo-natologist present."

The problem here is that University College Hospital cannot be used to represent the "true picture" either. At the very least. University College Hospital is not merely a "good" hospital with "good" neo-natologists: it's a world class institution with world class staff that has the skills and resources to achieve results that simply are not achieved elsewhere in the UK.

While the argument could be made that (with an infinite amount of resources) every hospital could approach that level of success, that's not an honest position from which to argue for a reduction in week limits. Do we want to pass laws based on what is theoretically possible, or what our health system is actually capable of achieving?

If this is a moral argument (and the morality of abortion is something this particular committee is deliberately avoiding), is it ethical to decrease the week limit without first pushing money into resources and training so that the potential survival rate can actually be realised?

libby brooks: the junk science linking cancer and abortion

Libby Brooks delivers a justified kicking to the junk science linking breast cancer and abortion..

The Breast Cancer Epidemic, a study conducted by the London-based Pension and Population Research Institute, takes data from eight European countries and purports to establish that, among seven risk factors, abortion is the most reliable predictor of breast cancer. At best, this is speculative, feeding present facts into a particular economic model and extrapolating a possible future. But even those present facts are dubious. It finds an increase in abortion and in breast cancer in some countries, but there is no data to suggest this is among the same women.

In other words, it assumes - without basis - that the group of women who have cancer are automatically the same women who have had abortions. She then points to the origins of such research (origins discussed in part here last week)

So it comes as little surprise to discover the Papri study was funded by the anti-abortion group Life, and that the rightwing Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, where it was published, is home to arguments such as: "The gay male lifestyle shortens life expectancy by about 20 years."

The gay male life expectancy studies are amongst the most easily debunked by simply examining their methods - see the discussion of unrepresentative samples here. Brooks then finally turns up in the comment section in response to the demand for more information:

On further reading, Carroll's agenda becomes clear. In his introduction, he baldly states that "abortions before the birth of a first child are highly carcinogenic", although he provides no scientific reference for this. When discussing the Czech Republic, where breast cancer rates are low while abortion rates are high, he conveniently proposes that there may be "less genetic susceptibility" to the disease in that country (again with no reference).

A great comment piece, and a nice example of how the blog format can help circumvent the (word) limits of print formats.

GPs are pro-choice

Neatly illustrating the point discussed below, here's the (usually conservative) Scotsman's discussion of the same survey of GPs attitudes towards abortion:

ALMOST two-thirds of doctors think the upper time limit for abortions in the UK should be reduced, research revealed yesterday.

A survey of 1,000 GPs by Marie Stopes International found 65 per cent thought the current 24-week abortion limit should be cut. Of these, 62 per cent said the upper limit should remain within 20 to 23 weeks. [...]

The Marie Stopes survey found 80 per cent of doctors described themselves as broadly "pro-choice" when it came to abortion, while 20 per cent were anti-abortion.

It also found that 52 per cent were in favour of changing the law to allow women to ask for an abortion within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy without needing the permission of two doctors. And 62 per cent agreed with current guidelines allowing under-16s to access abortion without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

If you weren't paying attention, you could be forgiven for thinking the two papers were talking about entirely different surveys.

more anti-choice distortion: GPs attitudes to abortion

Here's that selective reading pro-life strategy in full force - aided and abetted by The Telegraph:

Research by Marie Stopes International, a charity which carries out a third of abortions in Britain, found family doctors wanted the limit for social abortions to be brought down to between 20 and 23 weeks. [...]

Today's survey found that half of GPs also support a relaxation of the law to allow abortion on request up to 14 weeks, which would remove the need for two doctors to sign off on each case.

One in five GPs said they were anti-abortion with the rest as broadly pro-choice, while three in five agree that allowing girls under 16 to have an abortion without their parents' knowledge or consent was satisfactory.

The Telegraph focuses on the first finding in the headline and lede - and tries to minimise that the survey broadly shows a desire to relax the regulations surrounding abortion. While The Telegraph could have led with "No parental consent for under-age abortions, two thirds of GPs say," they focus on the single finding which most strongly supports the anti-choice agenda.

Keeping that frame in mind, here's the anti-choice response, claiming support for their position:

Michaela Aston, a spokesman for the charity Life, said: "The disquiet among GPs reflected in this poll is a hint of the more general and pervasive dissatisfaction among the public concerning the practice of abortion itself.

But not amongst all GPs - or even the majority - are dissatisified with the practice of abortion itself. The fact that the majority are broadly pro-choice means just that: they understand that safe access to legal abortion is necessary and desirable.

"The lack of clear support for easier access suggests that many GPs do not support calls by the pro-abortion lobby for easier access to abortion."

But many GPs - and seemingly more GPs, along with their colleagues elsewhere in the medical profession - do support easier access. Three in five are happy for abortion for under 16s to take place without parental knowledge or consent, four in five are seen as broadly pro-choice and half support the removal of the requirement of two signatures. It's the description of a medical community that's both pro-choice and interested in liberalising access to abortion.

Given that the survey demonstrates that GPs are capable of holding positions on abortion beyond the absolute demand to ban, the claim that these results show support for Life's ultimate agenda - the end of abortion in the UK - is an act of gross distortion. In fact, this survey demonstrates how far apart Life and the vast majority of medical professionals stand.

sex education scare stories, part 1023

The Evening News tries its best to combine the full platter of paranoia and misinformation about sex education. From October 11th:

A HIGH-PROFILE campaign to promote safe sex among teenagers has been branded a failure after it emerged two schoolgirls fall pregnant in the Lothians every week.

Nearly 700 girls aged 15 or younger became pregnant in the region during the past six years, according to new figures released to the Evening News.

The yearly total has dropped only slightly over the period, despite a series of initiatives to tackle the problem - such as giving free condoms to children under 16 and handing out the morning-after pill to schoolgirls without parental knowledge.

First, there's no mention of the overall rate, so we have no sense of the scale of the problem. The FOI request only asks for total numbers by postcode - so we're robbed of context by design. Then there's the focus on the policies most associated with knee-jerk reactions - namely access to contraception - rather than the broader scheme of education which occupies the greater share of resources.

The claim that the programme is "a failure" is never actually given a fair examination - the "journalist" involved accepts the claims of critics on face value and fails to do any of the independent research that might test that claim. Having set up the narrative - sex education doesn't work and is a waste of money - we go to our usual suspects, who repeat the standardised claims:

A controversial Healthy Respect pilot scheme was established in 2001 in the Lothians, which involved setting up centres where teenagers can go for advice on sexual health.

The scheme, which has so far received £5 million of Scottish Government funding, also gives condoms and the morning-after pill to young people.

Once again, a focus on access to contraception (even though contraception is only part of the programme, and access to contraception has a proven link to reductions in pregnancy. Yes, it hurts to have to point that out).

But Peter Kearney, a spokesman for the Catholic Church, said: "The fact there has been no significant decrease [in teenage pregnancies] after huge amounts of money has been spent on initiatives shows there is clear need to change tack. There is a lot of evidence that suggests the wide range of sexual health services out there has actually led to an increase in sexual activity."

This is simply untrue. It's fat old lie. There is not "a lot of evidence," only the claims of socially conservative activists (which are at best supported by anedotal evidence but mainly supported by nothing at all). And - even if there were - sexual activity in itself is not the problem: the problem is unsafe sex.

As for the claim that there has been no significant decrease? Well, here's Councillor Mrs Marilyne MacLaren, Convener for Education, Children and Families, writing to the Evening News on October 15th:

I felt the article did not point out clearly enough that programmes run in conjunction with partner agencies in local authority schools in Edinburgh are succeeding. The number of under-15s to become pregnant in the Edinburgh area has fallen by an estimated 36 per cent since 2003, which is really excellent news.

This is not an area where we can afford to be complacent; however, I do think this statistic is encouraging.

In other words, that story you wrote last week was entirely misleading, and doing some research instead of blindly believing what you were told would have revealed that.

All schools in Edinburgh run an age-appropriate progressive sexual health programme and it is important that the focus of this is always on relationships. Secondary school pupils participate in Share (Sexual Health and Relationship Education) which is a programme of 22 one-hour sessions run from second to fourth year.

We are also very proud of our dedicated sexual health team which works with fifth-year pupils on issues such as unintended pregnancy, STIs and HIV. As part of these programmes we work hard with our partner agencies to ensure that young people are given up-to-date advice on appropriate specialist services.

Finally, it's worth remembering what the "controversial" central message of the programme is: delay until you are ready, but be safe when you are active. So why is that controversial for some? It recognises that people have sex outside of marriage, and that contraception exists and works.

priest "just researching" s&m to "foil satanists"

It's hard to see how this story could get funnier:

The Vatican was last night at the centre of an unusually public sex scandal after acknowledging it had suspended a senior official who was filmed apparently propositioning a young man in his office. Monsignor Tommaso Stenico, a capo ufficio, or section head, at the Vatican ministry responsible for the clergy, insisted yesterday he was not gay. He said he had posed as a homosexual to research a plot by satanists.

It's an ingenious excuse that's ripe with adaptability, e.g. I'm not gay, I'm just sucking cock to infiltrate the Illuminati.

[The young man] was invited to have sado-masochistic sex and arrangements were made for a meeting in St Peter's Square.

Too many available jokes - I'll settle for "now that's what I call an audience with the Pope."

Mgr Stenico acknowledged in several Italian media interviews yesterday that he had been suspended. But he told the Corriere della Sera newspaper that he "wanted to carry out a study, probably for publication". He said he was a registered psychologist and psychotherapist and his aim had been "to study how priests are ensnared".

He added: "I really believe that there is a diabolic plan by satanist groups who take aim at priests."

So, you're researching entrapment tactics by.. approaching young men inviting them over for a bit of lash and incense.Uh, isn't the entrapment of priests supposed to work the other way around? It's not really entrapment if you're actively trolling around the internet looking for casual sex - it's the other thing, called trolling around the internet for casual sex.

And "probably for publication" is a nice touch - I can see how the account of a priest pretending to seduce young men for .. ahem.. personal use only could be misinterpreted.

times distorts on military "gay protest" resignations

Dominic Kennedy's report in The Times that the Royal Navy suffered "a spate of protest resignations by lower-ranking officers" after the ban on gays in the military was lifted is almost comically one-sided.

Here's the money quote:

A previously undisclosed rash of resignations from the Navy is described among the ranks of Senior Rates, Warrant Officers and SNCOs: "This stratum of naval society is considered to be one of the most traditional and, correspondingly, there remains some disquiet in the Senior Ratings' Messes concerning the policy on homosexuality within the Service. This has manifested itself in a number of personnel electing to leave the Service, although in only one case was the policy change cited as the only reason for going."

This conveniently omits the very next sentence of the document, which reads:

Nonetheless, homosexuality is not a major issue and, to put the effect of the policy change into context, the introduction of Pay 2000 and pay grading caused a far greater reaction .

That context is ignored, because it contradicts the story Kennedy has decided to report. Limited to a mere three sentences (and only interested in the first two) he has to rehash the same information again and again - "a spate of protest resignations.. a rash of resignations" - even though there's no actual information of how many people resigned.

Most dishonestly, the story (and headline) tries to suggest that the lifting of the ban is the primary reason for those resignations - even though the document itself makes it clear that the ban is only a contributing factor in all but one case, outweighed by the impact of changes to pay and other terms of service.

The one-sidedness of the reporting continues throughout, lavishly detailing traditional concerns about sharing showers and living quarters. Once again, the text of the document tells a different story - repeatedly arguing that:

there are a few commonly held concerns but none that are significant in the minds of naval personnel

and

it is simply no longer considered a major personnel issue [for the army]

Of course, to admit that none of the issues Kennedy details are actually significant would undercut the entire premise of his story - that every warning about gay people disrupting the armed services was true, even though the facts tell a different story.

The genuine story - which Kennedy manages to ignore - is that the RAF seems much less accepting of gay personnel that the other two branches of the armed services, expressed primarily as the concern amongst couples that "same-sex partners would be allowed to move into family quarters and influence their children."

Kennedy also ignores the extent to which the FOI document describes a generational gap - where younger, and more junior personnel are far less concerned about the issue. Instead, he chooses to quote senior and retired personnel who represent the most conservative views:

"If the doors were opened to homosexuals, there would be a polarisation, people would be ostracised, there would be a sort of 'us and them' atmosphere . . . Men don't like taking showers with men who like taking showers with men"
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Armitage (retired), former head of military intelligence

The fact that Sir Michael Armitage has largely been proven wrong doesn't seem to matter.

sunday times assumes wifi risk, goes looking for denial

While there might not be proof of a link between wifi and cancer, there's plenty of evidence of a link between wifi and awful science reporting. Here's The Sunday Times:

A MAN who admits that mobile phone usage may have caused a tumour in one of his ears is helping to introduce wifi networks emitting the same kind of radiation to hospitals and colleges.

AAAAAGH. He "admits it" because you asked the question; the fact he's willing to admit phone use "may have" caused a tumour is NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING.

While it might fulfil some kind of quote for irony - man who sells cancer causing devices gets cancer - it assumes a narrative that doesn't exist. It's bad journalism becomes it proceeds from the (currently baseless) assumption that wifi is a danger and then goes looking for denial.

For what it's worth, acoustic neuromas are a rare benign tumour: my father had one removed, and he too suffered hearing loss and nerve damage to his face from treatment. If we're trading anecdotes as evidence, he didn't even own a mobile phone until he was in his 50's.

For special stupid points, there's the passive assumption that wifi and mobile phone signals are the same thing; it's left to the story's sole subject, Lyons, to point this out:

“People [i.e. journalists for the Sunday Times] get confused between wifi and mobile phones but one gives out just a fraction of the radiation of the other if you look at how they are used. I have a wifi device in my pocket, but I don’t hold it to my head. Holding it away from your body reduces by a quarter the amount of radiation you get.”

He added: “Wifi gives out a far less powerful output than any mobile phone mast. The radiation is less than you would get from a microwave oven. So unless we are going to do away with mobile phones there is no logic in doing away with wifi.”

Mobile phone firms and manufacturers of wifi networks say there is no proven link between the radiation and ill health.

It's not just firms and manufacturers but the consensus of scientific knowledge at this time.

What is it with wifi scare stories that cripples the abilities of the average journalist?

melanie phillips: this call for harmony is a death threat (updated)

The Melanie Phillips guide to reading comprehension:

And so when it says

So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us. Let us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works. Let us respect each other, be fair, just and kind to another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual goodwill

it’s really a variation of the ancient adage: submit or die.

There is, of course, nothing that any Islamic scholar could have written that could not have been characterised by Phillips as "put[ting] a scimitar to the neck of the Christian church."

You might also notice how her manichean world view allows her to maintain both that only a part of the Islamic world "has waged war on the Christian (and Jewish) western world" and that the entire Islamic world - via the "global Jihad" - wants Christianity to surrender.

To summarise: hoooot, hooooot.

EDIT: More of that deplorable bending over backwards to global Jihad:

"Our Nation is proud to be a land of many beliefs, and our society is enriched by our Muslim citizens. On the first day of Shawwal, the first month of the Islamic calendar, may people of all faiths reflect on the values we hold in common, including love of family, the importance of community, and gratitude to God."

...courtesy of President Bush, in a presidential statement issued by the Whitehouse (which, incidentally, got the facts wrong in the first draft, now corrected: Shawwal is the tenth month). Found via Dan Froomkin. I look forward to Phillips' strident condemnation of President Bush for enabling the slaughter of good Christian men and women etc. etc.

royal college of OBGYN: two signature rule on abortion should be scrapped

More on the coming debate on shifting the terms of access to abortion:

Women should no longer have to obtain the signatures of two doctors to have an early abortion, and the upper time limit for the procedure should remain at 24 weeks, doctors' leaders said yesterday.

In evidence to an inquiry by MPs into abortion law ahead of possible amendments to legislation later this autumn the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says the legal requirement for two signatures in the first three months of pregnancy is "anachronistic" except in very complex cases, and should be scrapped. [...]

It brings the college into line with the British Medical Association, whose evidence to the inquiry by the Commons science and technology committee states that abortion should be available to women in the first trimester on the basis of "informed consent", and without the need for the permission of two doctors. In practice, the requirement does not stop women having an abortion but can cause delays that lead to distress, the college argues.

Both the RCOG and the BMA, and the Royal College of Nursing, also say in evidence published by the committee yesterday that the upper time limit for abortion should remain at 24 weeks .

So, neither the RCOG, the BMA or the Royal College of Nursing think that advances in neo-natal care warrant a change in the week limit; it'll be interesting to see which medical research pro-life groups can produce that's both entirely convincing to them, and not convincing at all to medical professionals.

It also would be nice if someone could ask Nadine Dorries what she knows that the RCOG, the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing don't. However - with depressing predictability - the pro-life groups who want the week limit reduced and compulsory counselling for anyone seeking an abortion will take the simple step of entirely ignoring any medical evidence or opinion offered: prepare yourself for one of those "debates" where one side arbitrarily claims to be the defenders of women while restricting their right to choose.

an terror attack of the blindingly obvious

Scaremongerer of the day, Liam Fox, who also wins the "No Shit, Sherlock" Award:

The UK must "wake up" to the "clear and present threat" of terrorists using nuclear weapons, a senior Tory MP said yesterday. Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said a nuclear strike could kill millions and called for action to stop groups securing nuclear material.

Yes, up until now we've all been complacently handing out plutonium with the Evening Standard.

*sigh*

it doesn't mean we have to stop printing her picture

A rare moment of insight from the readers of the Mirror, via their web poll:

Will the Diana inquest bring an end to the conspiracy theories surrounding her death?

    * Yes  396   6%
    * No    6146   94%

Given that conspiracy theories are resistant to both facts and logic, no amount of logically derived fact is going to have any impact. Elsewhere in the Mirror, day-by-day photo coverage of the inquest, for people who are mawkishly obsessed with death but can't be bothered with the reading.

matthew parris: victims of homophobia are weak, fragile and "weedy"

Having previously declared himself "post-homosexual" while lecturing queers to "stop moaning" - because discrimination, bullying and homophobia don't exist in Matthew Parris' world - Parris now reclaims the gay label to once again lecture others.

We gays are not so weedy that we can't take insults

Seriously threatening language – of any kind – is already a crime; but once the law starts limiting free speech in matters of honest opinion, where does it stop?

As with all other pundits, the place where it "stops" is never the golden kingdom of hugs and icecream - it's always the end of life as we know it.

Parris then saves everyone a huge amount of trouble and does the job of the judiciary by arbitrarily interpreting the proposed law for us:

The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination; God puts the city of Sodom to the torch; the present Pope calls it a “disorder”. Such views, however civilly expressed, are inherently hate-inciting, but should their expression be a crime?

Inherently hate-inciting? Really? That's an excitingly sweeping judgement: I think we can let the attorney general know (who has to give permission for anyone to be prosecuted under this law) that he can go home early tonight. There's the small problem that the concept of "inherently hate-inciting" appears nowhere in the law, but.. ah, well.

It's worth pointing out that Parris' knowledge of the Bible and of the evangelical attitude towards homosexuality is thrillingly shallow - but then, if you don't believe that homophobia is a problem anymore, why should you be expected to know anything about it? All you need to know is enough to dismiss it.

Then why should we remain free to sneer, in ways inciting hatred, at a person’s being Welsh, or Irish?

If this is a problem, it's not one that addresses the validity of criminalising the incitment of homophobic hatred. If Parris genuinely thinks it is a problem, then he should argue for its inclusion; if not, it's just rhetorical point-scoring from the security of a well-paid column that shows no interest in people on the receiving end of hatred.

"Spastic" or "cripple" are hateful expressions that nobody should use as insults, but if the use of "batty boy" or "queer" is to invite prosecution, what is the argument against making disablist insult a matter for the police too? And how about language that incites hatred of women?

More rhetorical questions that don't actually lead anywhere. "What" and "if," indeed, Matthew? "If" this is a column, "what" on earth are you arguing? Parris' questions are deliberately obtuse: no-one is arguing that the mere use of the words "queer" or "batty boy" will lead to prosecution - and to suggest otherwise is deliberately misleading.

Lines of absolute principle are hard to draw, but some groups may be so weak and fragile as to need the law’s protection from hateful speech. I’d like to think we gays are no longer among them.

It's nice that Parris has decided to rejoin the ranks of the gay in order to speak, patronisingly, once more on their behalf and accuse the men and women who suffer from the effects of homophobia as being week, fragile and "weedy." I'm sure that will come as a great comfort to the young gay men and women who daily experience bullying in schools which refuse to recognise the problem even exists (thank you, Catholic Church in Scotland).

Once more, fuck you Matthew Parris, fuck you.

on the difference between art, punditry and a hole in the ground

If, for some suitably improbable reason, I should find myself trapped down a mine shaft with Melanie Phillips, I can be assured of a lecture on a conspiracy of miners, in cohorts with elemental creatures of rock and Isaac Newton, he of the theory of gravity.

The idea that sometimes people just fall down holes in the ground through circumstance or misfortune is unlikely to get much attention: there will, undoubtedly, be a large and world-threatening series of events of which an hour in the dark with Melanie Phillips is only the beginning.

To that end, I'd like to pre-empt the inevitable with this story: people fall into small hole they have been warned about.

(edit: It's pretty much the definition of the Daily Mail tendency that climbing out a three foot hole has to be described as a "rescue.")

vote idiot for president

One of the self-sustaining narratives of the US election seems to be expressing suprise that incredibly low expectations can be surpassed by candidates who are still inept. It's as if the media is pre-emptively dumbing down to avoid political debate that might actually rise above the level of haircuts.

The Times' headline - Actor has stage fright but survives debate - is a fine example: Fred Thompson might be an entirely incoherent, underfunded and seemingly ignorant candidate driven by pesonal ego, but because we think so little of him we're amazed when he knows who the Prime Minister of Canada is. It's an insular standard invented by the pundit class and measured by the pundit clas; it's important because they say it is.

While standards have dropped, I'm not sure merely remembering the name of the leader of the country directly next-door to you is deserving of any merit: it's the political equivalent of checking someone is still breathing. More importantly, the unfortunate consequence of these incredibly, patronisingly low standard is that hacks like Rudy Giuliani - a multiple adulterer and fantasist who has milked 911 for every conceivable opportunity available - starts to look a statesman in contrast.

burning stupid

The stupid, it burns, it burns:

It used to be seen as an amorous adventure that would eventually end in tears. But a study has revealed that almost six in ten women have had a secret affair with a colleague.

Leaving aside the awesome wrongness of the summary (the survey - not a study - is about workplace relationships - there's no mention of secrecy or marital infidelity), you might be wondering once more where all the men are.

So, are the six in ten women all having sex with each other, or is this just the kind of question you'd never think to waste time asking a man?

ID cards and ePassports: the clusterf*ck continues

It's the kind of story that's hard to discuss without percussive swearing, but I'll try. In the guise of "accountability," the Public Accounts Committee have asked the government why we have to pay out for both a new ePassport AND an identity card when they both share the same kind of information.

Here's the defence offered by the Identity and Passport Service:

An IPS spokesman said "best value for money" was being ensured by developing common systems and application processes for both documents.

It is quite, quite hilarious to hear any defence of the identity card scheme which includes the phrase "best value for money," given the billions of pounds being spent on something for which the rationale is, at best, paper thin.

But he said they differed as only British nationals got British passports, while all adults resident in the UK would be covered by the ID card scheme.

That's a not-so-subtle reminder that Labour have promised to bring in legislation making identity cards compulsory if they win the next election, whether you have a passport or not. It's also an admission that the state thinks it needs more information on you to authorise hospital treatment than to let you cross its borders.

He added that ID cards had extra functions that the ePassport chip, which was "constrained by international standards", could not include.

I believe this is code for "the law prevents us from screwing with non-British nationals in the way we can you with you here at home." It's an excuse that reeks of the problem with the whole project: feature bloat, where something largely useless has more and more "functions" added to it in the desperate attempt to make it look worthwhile.

This is, incidentally, the passport whose chip only has a two year warranty, even though the passport is supposed to last for ten years. Having had the question raised repeatedly by MPs, IPS chief executive James Hall has said if microchips failed, the IPS would have to replace the passport. It's an interesting definition of value for money: use a cheap version with a short warranty which we'll (and by that we mean you, the tax-payer) will have to pay more to replace.

"The ID card will enable you to confirm your identity in a secure, convenient way in a range of transactions with public and private sector organisations that you cannot with an ePassport," he said.

You'll excuse me, but that's utterly meaningless FUCKBALLS. The idea that I need to be "enabled" to confirm my identity is entirely fictitious - it's the rationalisation of a system that's unneeded and unwanted.

The notion that private sector organisations are interested in the ID card is particularly deceitful - tied into the pretence that it will in some way reduce credit card fraud (the size of which has repeatedly been exaggerated by the government).

It would be rather nice if our MPs could take the next logical step from asking why we need to pay for both an ePassport and an identity card - and once more ask why we need an identity card at all.

the daily mail: using the issue of rape to score points against gay people

Today's Daily Hate:

Stirring up hatred against homosexuals is to become a serious crime punishable with a seven-year jail sentence under a law announced last night. The legislation - similar to laws already in force outlawing persecution on religious or racial grounds - will make criminals of those who express their views in ways that could lead to the bullying or harassment of gays. The maximum sentence is longer than the average of around five years handed to rapists.

Oh, where to start? First, the words they're struggling for are not "similar to laws already in force" but IDENTICAL to laws already in force. As with the Sexual Orientation Regulations, gay people aren't getting any protection that doesn't already exist for the religious (who, worried hypocrisy was going out of fashion, led the charge against that change.)

Regular readers will know that the Sexual Orientation Regulations were introduced as a direct consequence of the Equality Act - the main purpose of which was to outlaw religious discrimination. This is not special treatment but identical treatment.

As for rape sentences? It's a red herring of the highest order, and anyone who wasn't a human parasite would feel some kind of guilt about using the issue of rape to score points like this. Anyone not entirely occupied with scaremongering would avoid comparing a maximum sentence with an average sentence (and incidentally, rape has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment).
So, what kind of hack makes that kind of distorted comparison? It actually takes two: Steve Doughty and James Slack.

ITN thinks I'm "potentially damaging"

Very indirectly, I discover this about Websense's filters:

Your organization's Internet use policy restricts access to this web page at this time.

Reason: The Websense category "Potentially Damaging Content" is filtered.
URL: http://rhetoricallyspeaking.blogspot.com/

The organization concerned? ITN.

The last thing I said about ITN?

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.

And the time before that?

The group which has seen the single greatest loss of public confidence between 2003 and 2007? ITV news journalists, dropping 28 points to 54% - though this still places them well above politicians of every description.

Oops.

arse / face

From the school of Have We Objectfied Women Enough Yet?

Every woman eventually has to choose: a youthful face or a pert behind.

Or, if you're writing women's features, whether to talk out of your youthful arse.

The Times' fashion editor Lisa Armstrong is clearly scraping the bottom of her own personal barrel, as she doesn't ever quite get around to explaining her insane claim that women are forced to pick between two body areas. There seems to be some suggestion that the body fat required for healthy skin has a magical ratio to the size of your bottom - that one must come at the sacrifice of the other. The prospect of balance (or, indeed, a non-arsed fixated lifestyle) doesn't really seem to feature - but then without the false arse-face dichotmoy, this article would make even less sense.

While Armstrong knocks down a few of her own straw-women ("No one here is advocating being several stone overweight as the price you have to pay for supple skin") it never quite registers that the conversation is quite, quite insane to begin with. Strict dieting and fat injections? How is it possible that even proposing such an idea isn't seen as the sign of mental illness?

It's also a stellar step forward for the pursuits of feminism when "having it all" can be defined as having both a nice arse and pretty face -  which, given that Armstrong then spends a few hundred words talking about cosmetic surgery, has more to do with the size of your credit limit rather than a cosmic crossroads between picking a tight bum or sculpted cheekbones.

Wow. Even for fashion articles, this is stupid.

breast cancer and abortion: still no evidence of link, despite pro-life sponsored research

There's nothing like a public debate about abortion to bring the lies and distortions out of the woodwork:

The rising rate of abortions will lead to a sharp increase in breast cancer cases, says a study. Its discovery of an apparent link between terminations and cancer are sure to be a factor when MPs debate changing the abortion laws later this year.

A report in a respected American medical journal, predicts a dramatic rise in breast cancer among those who have had abortions before giving birth to their first child.

The supposed link between breast cancer and abortion has been pushed fiercely by pro-life campaigners for over a decade - without ever producing reliable evidence. This recent study ignores the difficult step of actually finding medical evidence for a link, and instead produces figures based on speculative statistical models which assume a link.

That's right: this paper contains no medical, scientific evidence of a link. Yet evidence of an apparent correlation is presented as proof of cause.

The Mail chooses to repeat the pro-life charity LIFE's line that the link is due to an imbalance in the hormone, oestradiol. It's a rationale for which is there no reliable evidence - and which this latest piece of research does not even mention, let alone support. Incidentally, neither of the journalists responsible for the story - Simon Caldwell or Daniel Martin - think it's appropriate to point out that the research was funded by LIFE. Funny, that.

All of the above is rooted in the dishonesty of claiming that scientific opinion is divided - with two equally rational camps making equally supported arguments. This is not in any way true - but the Mail can't even state that without trying to suggest otherwise. For a taste of the persistent attempt to muddy the water, try the closing paragraphs:

Scientific opinion is divided, however. In 2004 an international study led by Oxford University concluded that having an abortion does not heighten the risk of breast cancer.

There has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, at the same time as the number of abortions rose from 18,000 a year to nearly 200,000.

Dr Lesley Walker of Cancer Research UK said last night: "Women should not be anxious about the suggested link between abortion and breast cancer. A number of large independent studies - including a recent re-analysis of data from 53 studies - have found no evidence of a link."

Here the apparently inexplicable 80% rise in breast cancer is supposed to undermine the scientific consensus: surely anyone with common sense would suspect something's going on? This is, of course, bullshit of the highest order. To present two cherry-picked figures in the same sentence is not proof of anything; to entirely ignore actual evidence of actual risk factors (such as diet and lifestyle) in the attempt to assert a correlation is ignorant, lazy or wilfully misleading.

Scientific opinion is simply not divided in any meaningful sense over any link between cancer and abortion: there is no reliable evidence to support that claim. The attempt by pro-life campaigners to assume the moral high-ground and argue "all women have the right to know about the consequences of abortion," while presenting flawed or inconclusive evidence as fact, is deception of the grossest kind.

daily stupidity: 5/10/07

In an attempt to make summarising the Daily Stupidity quicker for everyone concerned, here's a quick rundown:

1. Repeating the claim that women "absorb 5lb of chemicals from cosmetics every year" does not make it true and even if it did, women absorb far more "chemicals" from eating and drinking. It's scaremongering and it's stupid.

2. Displeasure at the news that Muslim pupils won't face an outright ban on the veil is the height of hypocrisy - given how the Mail has reacted every time Christian dress (or faux-Christian jewellery) has been challenged. More significantly, allowing schools to make up their own mind would be one of those "free from central government interference" things that the Mail is supposed to be in favour of.

3. The breathless news that "the number of unmarried couples living together has shot up by two thirds during Labour's decade in power" forgets to mention that a) the decline in marriage is part of a long-term trend that stretches back thirty years and b) that there's actually nothing wrong with unmarried couples living together.

It's also dishonest to pretend that the number of unmarried couples living together is automatically the same as unmarried couples with children living together. Running together the totals of "cohabiting couples or families and single-parent families" is plain misleading. It's also dishonest to pretend that the drop in marriage is primarily or exclusively due to changes in some women's working lives - very occasionally, men are also involved in marriage.

Entirely absent is the possibility that ordinary people who are making decisions for themselves are mainly "to blame" for the decline in marriage.

4. Richard Littejohn is still a total fucking moron . Fixing on one stupid incident to claim that gay people get special treatment is lazy and misleading, as is the straw man argument that anyone criticising people who have sex in public places is homophobic. Even a minimal acquaintance with fact would reveal the number of critics of cottaging within the gay community itself, who can't understand why anyone would want to hang out in toilets for sex.

The smug suggestion that no heterosexual foursome would ever complain after being caught having in sex in public for fear of dying of shame suggests Littlejohn has little or no knowledge of a) 18-30 holidays, or b) the streets outside your average skanky bar or club on a Saturday night. Heterosexual modesty doesn't make a showing.

It's also helpful to remember that the number of gay men who enjoy open-air orgies or cottaging in public toilets is a tiny percentage of the whole, entirely dwarfed by the number of gay men who really hate Richard Littlejohn for being an ignorant bigot.

(Oh, and when he asks "The buggers are legal now, what more are they after?", I imagine the answer includes "Not to be referred to as buggers by small-minded hacks writing for newspapers who routinely print lies about gay people, thanks.")

nadine dorries misleads on abortion (again)

Nadine Dorries' latest contribution to the Cornerstone Group blog demonstrates several of the problems with her stance on abortion. At the very least, her post is self-serving and grossly misleading:

Research tells us that women who have abortions can experience mental health problems up to thirty years later..

.. for reasons entirely unconnected to abortion. As The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists notes for patients state:

"Some studies suggest that women who have had an abortion may be more likely to have psychiatric illness or to self-harm than other women who give birth or are of a similar age.

"However, there is no evidence that these problems are actually caused by abortion; they are often a continuation of problems a woman has experienced before."

For a sampe of research try here and here.

As I've argued before, it's also worth remembering the social consequences of societies and vocal groups which treat abortion as murder: depression can be a side-effect of social, rather than biological, circumstances. Above all, remember that the vast majority of women experience no mental health problems whatsoever.

Dorries' presentation of one side of the debate - and the failure to mention either the lack of consensus or any of the well researched counter-claims - is at best misleading, if not deliberately dishonest. Clearly, when Dorries argues for the need to reduce science into easily digestible chunks, she's just talking about the parts which suit her own agenda.

Back to Dorries:

..and the women themselves tell us how the decision to abort is never taken without coercion from either a boyfriend, parent or involved other.

Dorries' claim that no abortion has ever taken place without coercion - that no woman has ever exercised her own free will to choose an abortion - is both arrogant and patronising. It's an assertion without any apparent basis in fact - and part of Dorries' own conviction that all abortions are regretted.

That's not a claim that coercion never takes place, but that women are capable of making their own decisions. It's also not hard to imagine circumstances where a "boyfriend, parent or involved other" apply pressure to make women keep their unwanted pregnancies.

Then there's the presumption to speak for all women:

In an era of post feminism, do women not deserve a better deal than this?

This makes no sense. A better deal than being able to exercise choice?

Finally, Dorries slurs the motivations of the groups that seek to protect access to abortion:

On one side will be MPs like myself who think that after 40 years it’s time to accept that science has moved on and its time to reduce the upper limit.

We've already covered the problems with the claim to the scientific high ground. It's strange that this appeal to science would forget to mention the number of professional medical - let's call them scientific - bodies (including the BMA) who don't want the upper limit moved.

On the other side will be the pro choice lobby who want to see abortion made more freely available. When faced with this lobby which includes organisations such as Bpas, you have to ask why? Could the fact that they carry out almost half of all the abortions which take place have anything to do with it?

The suggestion that Bpas is interested in protecting access to abortion merely in order to maintain some kind of monopoly on the procedure is ludicrous beyond belief.

Could their interest in the issue perhaps instead have something to do with the fact that they - more than anyone else - have to deal with the consequences facing women with unwanted pregnancies? Could it have something to do with their knowledge that the ability to choose is what women want, and even need?

slavery and the question of asylum

There's a major problem with Jacqui Smith's hesitancy here:

Pentameter 2 will focus on providing protection for victims who have been kidnapped, falsely imprisoned and raped and identifying the scale and nature of human trafficking in Britain.

Ms Smith said that as part of Britain's programme of implementing the European convention against human trafficking, the operation would include a pilot scheme to formally identify victims as well as a 30-day "reflection period" before removal action against illegal entrants.

She said she wanted to protect and support victims, but a blanket guarantee that none would face deportation "would be likely to act more generally as a pull factor." She hoped asylum case workers would bear in mind their exploitation when deciding their futures.

Hoped? Hope is far from enough. While Smith might not be willing to offer a blanket amnesty - though her argument that this would act as a "pull factor" is spurious - the very least she could guarantee is that asylum case workers are required to consider the exploitation of those trafficked for sex, particularly when their return may send them back into circumstances where the cycle is repeated. Anything less and our response merely defers moral responsibility for victims of crime committed at our door.

It's also vital to recognise that - as is pointed out by Aiden McQuade of Anti-Slavery International - that "most people trafficked into Britain had been left with illegal immigration status by the traffickers as a means of control." Irregular immigration status isn't just a product of human trafficking - it's the means by which slavery is made possible.

vaccines for boys

As discussed in numerous previous posts here, the only moral question about the HPV vaccine was who should get it - not whether it should be available at all. So it's nice to see that the Mail's rebound from their original position ("cancer is the appropriate consequence for pre-marital sex") has reached the point where they're agitating for boys and young men to receive the vaccine.

Admittedly, it's partly motivated by the Mail's ever present desire to make the current government look bad - having both written stories about the high cost of the vaccine to the tax-payer AND stories about how desperate mothers have been forced by the heartless NHS to go private to get the vaccine.

While part of the decision to restrict the vaccination programme to young women may indeed relate to cost, the central argument is that the risk of death (from cervical cancer) does not exist for men - despite the link between HPV and penile cancer. Cervical cancer is the bigger killer, which is why a more legitimate concern is that there's no top-up programme for girls over the age of 12.

And yet here's where cost comes back into play, where it becomes less cost-effective to vaccinate older girls and women (rather than treat for cervical cancer) -not least because they may have already been exposed to one or more strains of the virus.

Regardless of the content of the story, there's always space for Stephen Green of the Christian Voice - going further than ever before to demonstrate he has absolutely no awareness of sex or young people:

He said: 'Giving the vaccine to boys as well as girls would simply encourage promiscuity among boys.

'What these vaccines do is bring about a false sense of security. Boys are simply going to think, ''I'm all right now'' and will take more risks. 'Surely a better way would be for schools to put more effort into promoting a lifestyle of chastity.'

He's never quite been able to explain why the vaccines will give a false sense of security, or why boys in particular will take more risks. Green's argument tends to be that some people will misunderstand and think that they are now impervious to all disease. Of course, when you allow for the possibility of education (and that not everyone is as stupid as Green) the problem goes away.

The promiscuity argument also bears the fetid traces of the idea that only the threat of cancer can keep our children chaste. For that, and that alone, Green's commentary on what is good for the health of young people can be freely disregarded.

blood money

While The Times leads with the denial - Blackwater denies rogue mercenary charge - a little context goes a long way:

Private security contractor Blackwater USA has had to fire 122 people over the past three years for problems ranging from misusing weapons, alcohol and drug violations, inappropriate conduct and violent behavior, according to a report released Monday by a congressional committee.

That total is roughly one-seventh of the work force that Blackwater has in Iraq, a ratio that raises questions about the quality of the people working for the company.

It's not so much questions, as answers to questions - like "why were they so cheap to hire in the first place?"

Read the congressional report here.

sunny hundal: free speech is vital for minority groups

Go read Sunny Hundals' piece at CiF on freedom of speech. Two slices:

Even when it is uncomfortable or downright offensive, freedom of speech and expression is especially important for minorities to cherish and hold on to tightly. They should argue for more of it, not less. It is a sign of political immaturity of religious "community leaders" (the MCB, HFB etc) and outdated thinking on the side of the race relations activists that they don't buy this argument.

and

Free speech is especially important for minority groups because when there is a crackdown through legislation on "unpopular" thoughts, it usually affects them disproportionately. It's about time they realised this.

And minority groups there can be taken to include those marked by sex and sexuality - thoughts on which when I've stopped feeling like crap. (If you feel like you've stayed out all night drinking then you should at least have had the benefit of staying out all night drinking, no?)

happy thoughts

There's something incredibly comforting about the declaration "Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday." Who'd have thought the recipe for happiness could be so simple as to never buy that newspaper?

Powered by ScribeFire.

agnosticism, ho

Another reminder that religious observance is in long-term decline in the UK:

The Church of England has launched a campaign to make baptisms more popular after it was revealed that the number has halved in 15 years.
Fewer than one in six of all infants is now baptised and in major cities the number has fallen to one in ten. [...]

Just over 15 per cent of babies were christened into the CofE in 2005. The total of 93,000 Anglican baptisms was just over half the 184,000 as recently as 1990, they revealed. In the early 1930s seven out of ten of all children were baptised into the Cof E. More than a third were still christened in the early 1980s. [...]

The drop in baptisms mirrors a long-term decline in church attendance overall. The CofE saw its figures for Sunday attendance drop below the million mark at around the turn of the millennium. Roman Catholic churches in much of the country have also seen a fall.

One to file for the next time a pundit happily declares that Britain is a Christian nation.

Powered by ScribeFire.

naturally stupid

Spam comment of the day:

These articles are fantastic; the information you show us is interesting for everybody and is really good written.

Thank you. I'm glad you think my blog is good written.

Powered by ScribeFire.

melanie phillips: given that she's not smoking pot, it's hard to work out what she's on

It's one of those moments where Melanie Phillips is either stupid or deliberately obtuse:

Drug users break the law. The idea that they are not responsible for their actions is pernicious. They choose to take the stuff in the first place, after all. What next - treating people who commit murder under the influence of drugs or alcohol as 'victims'?

You heard it here first: the decision not to prosecute casual cannabis smokers will, in the fullness of time, lead to leniency in murder charges.

Aside from the obligatory leap to murder (there is no rhetorical "what next?" which ever leads to sunshine, puppies and hugs, only murderers running free) Phillips' version of drug use is that anyone who ever takes any kind of drug is instantly and irreversibly trapped in a downward spiral of addiction.

For someone so vociferous about all drugs, all the time, she's curiously quiet about beer, wine and cigarettes - somehow nicotine and alcohol have never quite made her list of substances, for the abuse of. It's possible that extending the claim that adults can't make their own decisions about what to ingest wouldn't go down so well if she started targeting.. well, just about everyone.

More importantly, the idea that someone who is an addict committing serious crime can both a) have their addiction recognised and treated and b) still be held accountable for their actions is one of those subtleties that happen to other people.

your tuesday quiz

Q. Anna Pasternak's epic - "Why more single women will now pursue a married man" - seems awfully long on anecdotes, slim on actual evidence and thick with stereotypes. Who do you think she's insulting more in the following excerpt?

How sad that women's behaviour towards other women has caused such bitterness. I'm not saying men are not culpable - because they are
always involved when adultery takes place - but, interestingly, no woman I talked to blamed them. They are merely seen as weak and gullible in the face of overt female flattery, and if they succumb, it's simply blamed on a mid-life crisis.


So, as the sanctity of the traditional nuclear family disintegrates before us, the worrying side-effect appears to be that many women today have few qualms about breaking up a marriage themselves.

Is it:

a) women;
b) men;
or c) the inviolable sanctity of the traditional nuclear church, OMG REST IN PEASE?

For extra credit discuss the use of the phrase "many women" in the context of baseless assertions OR the suspicion that any real person not made up for the sake of an article in the Mail would ever use the phrase "I used to believe in the sanctity of marriage but not any more."

Powered by ScribeFire.

whereupon there is bitching about the representation of masculinity in the press

While the tradition of arts features written by people with books to sell is rich, long-lived and noble, it's also filled with statements like this:

Modern British males are culturally hardwired to have the strongest opinions on all manner of relatively insignificant things, from our football team to our favourite brand of lager. So why this passivity when it comes to contemplating fatherhood?

Oh, sweet mercy. First of all, that's what we like to call "the mother of all sweeping generalisations." Second, the rhetorical question that follows it has just been answered: fatherhood is not insignificant, therefore "many men" have little interest in it.

Thirdly, the summary reduction of all men and male culture to lager and football is pithy, but also quite stupid. At best, it's gently patronising, but mainly it sounds like forced bloke-iness: I might be an arts journalist, but I'm still one of the ladz.

The "many" claim is also the traditional pundit method of establishing a social trend where one doesn't exist (or where there's no real evidence for one). Just how many is many? Is this class-specific "many"? Is this middle-class Times reading "many"? Is this religious or ethnic background specific "many"?

Or is this just "I made up this trend to support my book-sales many"? Hey, maybe I can ask some other people who have books they'd like to sell if they want to comment, too!

*sigh*

Powered by ScribeFire.

free as in speech

Fetid, shameless and anti-intellectual exercise of the day, entitled the "Restore Patriotism to University Campuses Act."

FWIW, select quotes from the president of Columbia University's address to the Iranian president which has led to the threat of funding withdrawal:

Let's then be clear at the beginning. Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. [...]In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as "a fabricated legend." One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers. For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. [...] I am only a professor, who is also a university president. And today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for.

It was a regular love-fest, no doubt.

Powered by ScribeFire.

what price gordon brown?

Philip Johnston's argument that Gordon Brown shouldn't call an election because they're so expensive doesn't make any real sense (even beyond the fact that the Tories have demanded one, and launched a major policy initiative in the hope of a bump in the polls).

Frankly, if we're going to accuse party leaders of "brazen opportunism" during conference season then we'll quickly run out of pots, kettles and black paint.

Similarly, if an election is expensive now - and there's no denying the increasing cost of the thing - it's not going to be any cheaper later: waiting another year and a half will have zero impact. Instead, we have the assertion that it's wasteful to have one now - only two and a bit years since the last one - and the vague implication that it won't be wasteful later.

Quite when we cross this magical date on the calender between frivolous vote-counting and The Justified Expense of The Will of the People is unclear, only that any date Brown chooses demonstrates a lack of judgment.

Above all, there's a gloriously perverse logic to someone who's also prepared to spend hundreds of words pointing out what a failure Brown has been - and how disastrously he's handled public finances, and bemoaning chronic waste and overspending - while simultaneously demanding that the man responsible remain in office for another two years.

If Brown is indeed the financial disaster his critics claim he is, isn't an election costing £100 million that offers a chance to get rid of him cheap at twice the price? If we're truly running at £101 billion waste each year in public spending under Labour, couldn't we even have a few before it stopped being value for money?

Of course, that's only an argument you make if you believe that the party you support has any chance of winning..