A Brief Post on the "Genetic ADHD" Findings.

Which can be summarised as:

"ADHD Genetic Faults Link – One child in 50 is suffering from ‘attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD), a problem whose causes are not well established and could be partially of genetic origin, according to a study released this week.

This condition, which leads to fidgeting, inattention, difficulty concentrating, impulsiveness, causing problems at school and affects more boys than girls. Symptoms appear within the first year of life.

The reasons advanced are varied: lax parents, food too sweet, biochemical disorders on neurotransmitters.

Genetic causes, are also mentioned since the risk that the child is hyperactive is increased if a parent is and that if an identical twin is hyperactive, the other has 75% chance of being well. A study published by the British journal Lancet shows for the first time direct evidence that goes in that direction.

Researchers led by Anita Thapar, Professor of Genetics at Cardiff University (Wales), compared the DNA of 366 children with hyperactivity and that of 1047 did not suffer. They then found that hyperactive children were more likely to have in their genome into small fragments of DNA double or absent.

These fragments, variations of copies of a gene, or CNV-role control valve on genes, their absence or duplication may alter gene expression.

They also found that these fragments were found in locations such as chromosome 16, which are involved in schizophrenia and autism, a disease that has some similarities with hyperactivity, such as difficulty in learning.

For researchers, one can imagine a biological basis common to both diseases.

“This is the first time we’ve found that children with ADHD have chunks of DNA that are either duplicated or missing,” explained Anita Thapar."

So we have a possible link between DNA oddities and ADHD that has evidence of positive correlation between both. But the article is keen to point out the following:

“Hyperactivity is not caused by a single genetic change, but probably several, including CNV, interaction with unidentified environmental factors,” said another researcher, Kate Langley."

This article has had a fair amount of coverage. ADHD is of course a concern for many parents so that isn't quite unexpected. It is also a controversial issue as there are those who believe ADHD is little more than a fictional disorder designed to exonerate bad parenting and just put a fancy label on naughty kids. But if the link has validity then this does raise interesting questions, and I do think it could (if there is a definite causal link) have a profound effect on societies thinking on both how disruptive individuals should be treated, and indeed our current consensus on ethics and understanding of human nature and the innate sense of good and bad humans have.

The potential consequences of discovering that the composition of the genome may be a dominating factor in the makeup of a persons character would throw our established notions of behaviour and the way we deal with "antisocial" traits quite literally out of the window. It is generally believed that a person, say a naughty child or a thuggish hoodie or a criminal deviant has chosen to be like that. They have decided to rebel from society. To not play by the rules. They are misguided at best, at worst downright evil. Parental issues and the person in questions background do generally come next in line in common consensus reasons for [negatively sanctioned] deviancy and antisocial behaviour. Our laws, both civil; workplace and school, criminal trials and general societal sensibilities reflect this. Diminished responsibility of course can be taken into account, but most trials assume at least some form of sound mind and active; freewill motivated cause of antisocial behaviour, and who is to say that at present that is our best understanding of how to deal with this sort of thing? But if inherited genetics was proven to be a big (and possibly the biggest role) in creating disruptive and antisocial behaviour what then? No-one chooses their own genome, like some organic computer program. That would render our established method of dealing with this sort of thing - completely obsolete. We would have to move from away from pure or largely free will; motivated theories of individual behaviour to one of a high degree of genetic influences. That is why if you think about the potential conclusions that can lead from these findings - this story could be so groundbreaking to our society. And contentious too.

If, hypothetically speaking, genetics was found to be the prime motivator for human behaviour and "bad" behaviour in particular, then we would see society having a hard time accepting it as nothing more than "do-gooder" shrinks and scientists making excuses for bad behaviour. Right wing columnists would go to town claiming it was all down to bad parents and feral youth, not arbitrary genetics. A genetically based prime motivator would also be extremely controversial and hard for the main religions to swallow. I think it would be as controversial as creationism, and could possibly be the next science / religion battle ground. "Free will" and "soul" are trumpeted by evangelicals and others, the former in particular being used to get God off the hook in regards to bad stuff people do under his "perfect" watch. Neither of these sit well with genetic theories of behaviour, and this is partly why; say Mel Phillips and Peter Hitchens are so "hostile" to things like ADHD.

There would also be the issue of being able to screen genes of embryos to spot these "troubled" genes. This of course brings the inevitable ethical questions of potential programs of "eugenic terminations", and the results that would follow. In Stephen Baxter and Aurthur C Clark's novel "The Light of Other Days" the characters [set in the future] notice that there are fewer hard discipline scientists and musicians than there used to be, as things like Aspergers and Manic Depression had been screened out and "treated" at birth. Could "purging undesirable" traits become closer to reality? And where could it lead?

I'm not for one minute saying that genetics is the sole factor in determining someones behaviour. I don't think that (neither do the researchers in the article), other stuff influences it also. But have put a hypothetical situation that could distort our held beliefs in such a radical way. A smallish research study that could have enormous consequences down the road.

Ooh New Star Wars Films. Sort Of.

I was interested to hear that Rolf Harris impersonator, George Lucas was planning to "remake" The Phantom Menace in 2012 on the news today. "Hooray" I thought, they are going to rewrite the awful dialogue of the prequels, we won't hear the kid who became Vader saying "yippee", and with luck Jar Jar Binks would die horribly at the hands of the Trade Federation, preferably hoisted ny his own glowing blue balls (watch the film.), and watch Annakin and Padme babble godawful romantic non sequiters at each other, whilst seemingly monged up to their tits with Stacey's Mum of Eastenders medication for her nerves. But no, Lucas just plans to re release the films concurrently on an annual basis so they can be seen in 3-d. Lucas was apparently Luke warm (see what I did there!) about 3D films, but when James Cameron did Avatar, he felt he had to respond, and that lays bare the sad reality of popular film making today. It ain't about making good movies so much as shoving as much CGI and other visual wizardry onscreen in order to make loads of cash with your blockbuster. Sad to say that making pots of cash is still the primary ambition in the world of film. A good film may stir the heart, and rattle the senses, and raise a question or two in the viewer, but does that flog loads of popcorn as easily as just sticking a load of fake looking space battles and blue people who live on a planet with bullshit physics and can plug their psychic tails in a spacehorses anus (no really). It can be disheartening to see films like the Star Wars prequels, which while visually (and George certainly has the scope for visual direction) stunning, have lame stories, which wilt under the sheer volume of CGI per frame. How Avatars visually rich visuals disguised a simplistic and cliched central plot. Other directors are guilty of papering over the cracks of weak stories with loads of CGI'ery too, but because I'm nice I won't name names, even though Michael Bay is guilty of doing this ...... Oh all the fucking time!

No I was disappointed to discover that the "remake" of Episode I, TPM - was a cosmetic one. Because IT IS THE WRONG FLIPPIN DIRECTION!! WRONG! With a bit of work (start by getting Jar Jar Abomination off the screen) there was a trilogy of decent films in there to be teased out by a decent writer. Look at Empire and A New Hope, the ones that; from a writing point - Lucas had the least influence on and especially Empire, the greatest of all the Star Wars films. Lucas is not really a good screenwriter, but with good writers to do that and articulate this excellent visual and conceptual artists ideas to a tight and pathos laden teleplay, his visions came alive so memorably as they did in those excellent films. The core concept of the prequels was a good one, the secret sith baddy conspires to usurp control of the galaxy by bringing about its downfall, and civil war by playing both sides against the other - whilst corrupting the protagonist to the final conclusion thrown in too. I'd say it was almost foolproof and a good series of films could have been made from it. But this was squandered by over reliance on visual shit that was just there for the hell of it, and Lucas letting his ego take priority into not subconsciously facing up to his poor writing and [especially] dialogue skills, and subcontracting them to a co-writer, or fully separate writing team. You're not telling me that those three prequel films were ever script edited at all!! (or even looked over by a friendly team member who could offer a bit of kind advice) The amount of plot holes and leaps of logic that made it to the final product itself. It was kind of the reverse of the Star Trek films, where a preposterous core story was made good by a strong script. It was a good (I'd cautiously, almost say foolproof) central story was let down by a bad script.

And that was why my heart sank just that little bit further today. We had the chance to make something out of the prequels and instead all we'll get in 2012 is to have to wear some stupid spectacles at the cinema, to have remade scenes of pod racers whiz past our heads, Darth Mauls red pole being waved in our face, and Jar Jars ears smacking us in the chops when he treads in some shit in the Tatooine ghetto. Sadly a step back really.

Ed Milibands Labour

As Ed Miliband just about squeaked past his brother to become Labour leader and gave his first ever leaders speech he seems to have made the break with New Labour, if we take his words at face value New Labour has gone, and a more traditional social democratic, union friendly one headed by him has taken its place. Instead of laying down a middle ground and staying there, he seems to be re-establishing a more traditional Labour manifesto. There was the admission that Iraq was a mistake, that tuition fees are bad, that a rampantly free market City was also no longer flavour of the month either. He offered the hand of friendship to the unions, but warned against militancy for militancy's sake as not to be tolerated. In short it was a most tacit embrace of social democracy that has been seen by the party since the nineties and the Labour traditionalists seemed to like what they heard. Gone are the days when it seemed like Tony Blair was only half comfortable with his party and almost disliked the older elements of the labour movement and tried to distance himself from them. When it seemed that New Labour was almost ashamed to admit any association with social democracy. Gordon Brown may have been more tribal at heart, but the financial crisis derailed everything, and the plain fact of a government having spent over a decade in power meant that he had really run out of steam in reasserting this sort of thing. But it seems today that this is the way forward for the party.

But is it risky? In one sense no. The party probably lost most of its floating support through the credit crunch and apathy after 13 years in office. But equally the Labour core vote was frittered away quite liberally with what they saw as an abandonment of them for the more middle class, swing voters. It may have been a necessary shift in values 13 years ago, but it put a lot of people out. I'm sure there was more than one red rose wearing MP candidate trudging dejectedly through a former northern mill town, at the less than enthusiastic response from once core voter bases this last election. I'm sure this is some ways an attempt at rapprochement with the disenfranchised arms of the party and voters, to shore up the core vote again. But what of getting votes further afield? In some ways Labour leaders were sort of keen to distance themselves from the kind of policies above because they thought that they lost votes. there was a strong feeling that in '87 and '92 that the Thatcher loving parts of the press had pilloried them for their policies, and the public had got swept up with this. But it is a little different now. The unfettered free market is seen as a major villain in causing the credit crisis in the publics eyes. The Coalition is hardly all that popular, and talk of the "big society" are a telling euphemism of this. Is Ed Miliband planning on greater public sentiment for social democracy in the face of ConDem spending cuts, and the cold winds that they potentially may bring with them? That they can poach worried public sector workers and disgruntled Lib Dems sidelined by the coalition compromises that as the junior partner; they bear the brunt of?

It is an interesting dichotomy building up. On the one hand the coalition wants spending cuts to bridge the deficit. It is of course - partly ideological. The Tory front benchers are stuffed with instinctive small government believers, steeped in hard Thatcherism. Considerable swathes of the public sector are seen in their eyes as an obstacle to hard core monetarist prosperity, and a socialist affront to got rid of. Ostensibly purging them in the name of spending cuts is a plum opportunity to do so, and I think a lot of the electorate have twigged onto this. By positioning themselves as a counterweight to a government looking downwards to cut their way to economic strength, as a government willing to shore from the bottom up, against the worst excesses of the free market, stabilising the economy from the ground up, and hopefully catch some Lib Dems who may want to fall off the spending cuts boat. Positioning Labour as an ideological counterweight to who has the most apt economic recovery plan.

Interesting times ahead whatever happens, and perhaps a move away from the centre ground seeking.

Did You Hear the One About the Council Banning Mother in Law Jokes? Yeah that was Just Made Up As Well.

The right wing press have yet again reported another story of "PC councils going mad" and in this case Barnet council have banned their employees from telling mother in law jokes in case they offend "elders and parents". This creates an ongoing narrative in the usual suspects of the red tops that the civil service is infested with politically correct puritan zealots who are so afraid of "upsetting" any minority peoples they will resort to unimaginable acts of PC overreaction at the expense of the "silent majority." If anyone who even casually acquaints themselves with the postings on the "Tabloid Watch and " the "5cc" blogs - reads this type of story in the papers, they know to smell a rat when they see one, and surprise surprise - this one is complete crock pulled out of some random PA wire copy, and then re pulled out of a "reporters" arse too for good measure. Yes the so called "cultural awareness booklet" is not some kind of Old Testament of PC that must be obeyed verbatim, on pain of death (which would presumably be a post mortally challenged issues and cadaver awareness diversity training in PC jargon.) but just a 12 part booklet that virtually no-one read; on various random issues offering advice on dealing with differing members of the public with courtesy, which was handed out at a one off meeting no one could really be bothered showing up for. It is not clear whether mother in law jokes were even mentioned in at all (the council says not.), or if they were (in the meeting or booklet) it was just to say that the parochial nature of them meant that they did not translate that well. Here is the councils response in full.

"A council has denied banning mother-in-law jokes after it was reported the puns had been outlawed.

A national newspaper reported that the north London council created a 12-page booklet saying the jokes were "offensively sexist" and disrespectful to "family elders".

A spokeswoman for Barnet Council said a document was created but was not widely published. It said there was no policy on the jokes but expects staff to be "polite" to members of public.

She said it was a handout given to 35 members of staff after a "one off" equality and diversity training session.

The spokeswoman said: "Barnet council does not have a policy on mother-in-law jokes.

"There is no booklet and no ban on mother-in-law jokes.

"Our advice to staff is that they should be polite and avoid giving offence to any member of the public."

Sounds fair enough to me. Though it gave the papers a chance to print some old "mother in law" jokes which I presume A) makes them look like they are defying the PC Stasi and B) shows what jokes were like in the good old days (some of the ones are a bit more recent.), when you could call a spade a darkie.. or something like that.

Just goes to prove in tabloid land if it looks like bullshit, sounds like bullshit, and smells like it. It is!

Do Bobbies on the Beat Cut Crime?

It seems a strange question to ask. Pretty much everyone seems to think so. Voters seem to want it. Politicians and opinion formers lobby for more beat officers and less time spent with coppers "filling in forms". It even appeals to common sense gut feeling. More police on patrol is bound to deter baduns. It supposedly follows doesn't it? Tom Utley in the Mail seems to think it does.

Or does it?

Utleys article is in response to the Chief Inspector of the Constabulary; Sir Denis O'Conner, who said that a drop in public faith in the police was in part due to them seen as turning a blind eye to responding to anti-social behaviour. This has lead to Theresa May saying she wants to put more bobbies on the beat. Alan Johnson has also said that he thinks that was a good plan too. (this would contradict Utleys point that it is politicians who are reluctant to see more beat policing. Why would they when it is electorally popular?) It does seem odd that senior coppers have been seen to be rather reluctant to do just this. (O'Conner never actually says out loud that more police on the beat actually cuts crime. Just that people seem to like it.) Or when they refer to it they seem to address it rather obliquely , like they don't seem to like to talk about it. Well the papers do like to talk about it, and are constructing a narrative of combing the worst examples of really horrible anti-social scrotes terrorising their poor neighbours to utter despair, showing how beat police are needed even more than ever. At first I suppose I would have perhaps felt the same way that it most follow that more cops on the streets will cut crime but then I read these pieces by "Flat Earth News" author Nick Davies, an investigative journalist who looked into this very thing. (articles: Here; here and here.) I began to see perhaps why the top cops are wary of beat policing. It just doesn't seem all that effective as a method of policing. The striking year long; 1972 to 73 experiment where Kansas city police used scientific methodology to test the effectiveness of beat based policing - discovered that when they created three specific "beats", one with three times as many foot patrolling police officers, one with none and one with the normal amount of cops, that the police numbers had next to no effect on the crime levels in the three zones, confirmed by over 600 different research indicators. Other studies have yielded the same results, that is foot patrol frequencies have negligible impact on crime rates and detections. It has been reckoned that a police officer in the UK would have to patrol for over 80 years to randomly chance upon nabbing a burglar in the middle of making off with someones DVD player. Bobbies on the beat appear to at best a sticking plaster solution to fighting crime, and only really succeed in making the public feel safer (which is not to be sniffed at. The fear of crime whilst not the same as actual crime, can cause great misery and fear to many people.) and at worst an attempt to fight crime, by not fighting it at all, and even making the public feel more threatened by coming to the understandable post hoc conclusion that as there are more cops around, there must be more crooks around as well.

When you began to give the issue some thought, it does dawn on you that the relative ineffectually of beat based policing is not quite the superficial contradiction in terms it appears. Davies uses an excellent metaphor to describe this method of policing as "doctors being told to prevent car crashes". What this essentially means is that crime like car crashes - is a multifaceted and complex issue, with many complex factors contributing to its causes and frequency. The on foot policeman is in the same boat as the hypothetical doctor, standing with his medical bag on the hard shoulder of the M6 earnestly waiting for his first casualty. He is reactively engaged into fighting on single front, a complex problem without having the resources to fight it in a larger context. The cop like the doctor knows that he is only scratching the surface of the problem. He knows stuff like drugs and alcohol abuse, and lack of facilities for kids, and policies of dumping the families from Satans sulphurous shitter without adequate concern for the local community. And indeed the problem of families like these being so chaotic and fucked up to the point of perverse nihilism, that any conventional deterrent is not going to achieve anything. These all have to be tackled, like the doctor knows that putting barriers and matrix signs on the motorway to warn traffic of hazards, or the problems will continue persist, with them picking up the pieces at the end. It may seem that a visible police officer could perhaps have stopped some yob decorating a car door with a pen knife, or harassing that disabled women as she goes to the local shop, and I'm not saying that in some circumstances it may be able to tackle some of the problem, or cause a less bold tearaway to have second thoughts about his line of work. They probably both apply. I'm also not advocating that coppers on the beat (especially working and getting to know the community) be withdrawn as they are of no use at all. Top cop Ian Blair has; if you read between the lines, has implied that the PCSO's were brought in to be delegated to this kind of policing. They do have a role and must be used. But they appear not to be the quick fix solution to every ones prayers, and this is a problem.

I say that the popular perception of beat based policing being a surefire way to cut crime levels, when in fact it is largely (not wholly though) a cosmetic operation, is a problem because of the fact that crime is such a complex beast to tackle. This means that to really make progress in tackling it you have to understand the roots of it. Unfortunately this is often seen as synonymous with sticking up for criminals and social engineering by critics, hence why politicians like to laud putting "feet on the street" so much. Getting to the roots of crime won't get headlines with a crime busting narrative, and can lead to accusations of being soft or turning a blind eye to "real peoples" suffering under crime. I hope to put accross that just because I think the more conventional police approach was not half as good as is perhaps thought, that doesn't mean I don't care about the victims of crime. I know that on many crumbling estates the residents can be browbeaten to sleepless fear at the hands of absolute gangs of horrors, or that an entire block can be dragged down to crime ridden misery at just one rogue family, and I sympathise with them a lot. This kind of posting may sound a bit hollow if you live in this kind of place, but I really don't think that more foot patrols would have stopped this from happening or have helped the stories published in the papers to support more foot patrols. It would likely be a case of borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, as yobs just terrorise someone out of the sight of the patrols and return when they have left. Then you have the issue of the patrolling being interrupted by actually dealing with antisocials, or being sent to a nearby incident. This is where I feel Utleys article misses the point. He sees crime and policing at the most generic level, with all the complexity removed. Sadly it isn't, if it was crime would have been solved years ago. No-one actually benefits from antisocial behaviour, and it affects everyone - so there isn't an ulterior motive for the police / government to "ignore" it. I think all right thinking people would do everything possible to stop crime if they had the power to do so, but sometimes that power can be elusive. That I think needs to be said more often, that this kind of thing can't be deconstructed as A is bad so we have to do B -there's always C,D and E as well. If the powers that be indulge this kind of thinking (and I'm not saying under the heat of popular flack, and nothing is more emotive than crime - that I can't see why they would) then they risk ending up initiating policies of limited merit otherwise.

Surely that truly is betraying the victims of crime.

Good News About the Ozone Layer

The UN scientists who undertook the "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010" have stated that the Montreal protocol of 1987, when 196 countries phased out the use of CFC's has meant that 2010 is really the first year when the thinning of the ozone layer, which led to the "hole" over the Antarctic discovered in the 80's - has not increased, but not yet decreased either. Hopefully this reduced level of CFC's means that the worst of the damage has been prevented. And that a concerted collective effort to curb a pollutant has been (so far) successful.

The CFC's creating the hole in the ozone layer was one of the most famous popular environmental focal points of the 1980's, yet was and still is rather misunderstood by many. It was a tragic tale of a very promising bunch of compounds having the ability to unleash a terrifying chain of events under the right conditions, which would lead to one of the most surprising examples of scientific unforeseen consequences. The hole in the ozone layer was a big concern in the 80 and 90's and led to Montreal being enacted to curb but not fully stop CFC's as well as things like freon and halon fire extinguishers dumping this stuff into the stratospheric ozone layer. As I said it does still remain a not well understood phenomena in parts of the lay population. The hole (it is actually more of a zone of depleted ozone, than a literal hole in the sky.) is sometimes blamed on man made climate change, whilst it is really a different topic altogether. Though the two do have some interlapping points, which really take us on other trajectories elsewhere. Was this why the Daily Star proclaimed that this story "proved" Global warming [their words] was just "hot air"? Many of the comments on the Expresses report of the story seem to confuse the two issues as one. So what is all this ozone malarkey then?

This will be only a summary of what the "ozone thingy" is all about. I mean who the hell am I, a bloody science teacher? About 20 to 30 kilometers up, in the stratosphere there is a diffuse band housing 90 percent of the planets ozone in a layer called the ozone layer. Ozone is essentially 3 chemically linked oxygen molecules, rather than the two linked ones you normally get in atmospheric oxygen. At this height the thinner air allows more UV radiation to saturate the molecules up there. This means that the UV can slice individual oxygen molecules off which attach to other paired up oxygen molecules, creating ozone. This ozone is also chopped up into normal oxygen by UV, which can then have other single molecules latch on and create some more ozone. This effect, with its interactions - also has the useful ability to shield the surface (and all us lot) from the most harmful levels of UV radiation such as UVC and the most dangerous wavelengths of UVB, so we get suntans and plant food, and not cancers and sterilized single celled lifeforms. A natural radiation shield that stops us getting zapped by our own suns less welcoming side. The molecules being chopped and shifted in the layer mean that it is constantly seeing ozone created then destroyed, then created again, all in a level of finely tuned equilibrium, and it is this equilibrium where CFC's do the damage.

CFC's or chlorofluorocarbons (or bromocarbons) were created in the late 19th century for use as refrigerants and propellant gasses and expander aerosols. They were initially seen as the saviour of this kind of chemical product. They took over from stuff that was either flammable or poisonous or both together. CFC's were neither. By using halogens rather than hydrogen bonded to carbon, they didn't burn, and lacked the unpleasant properties of older stuff used fo their new purposes. They were also very stable, well they were down on the ground. In the 1970's and 80's it was noticed (by amongst others James "Gaia Theory" Lovelock and others) that the ozone layer was thinning. It became known that CFC's which had been pumped into the atmosphere for 60 plus years, were themselves starting to degrade by UV bombardment in the upper atmosphere, it had just taken a while to degrade them. Single chlorine and even worse - bromine atoms were energised and broke free where they could interact with the ozone and "steal" the third atom, which could go on to eat into more ozone molecules. It is reckoned that through this and further catalytic reactions, one of these radicals could devour 100 000 ozone molecules, throwing the equilibrium to a sharp deficit of ozone to oxygen produced. Montreal was implemented to prevent the CFC's from overwhelming this layer to an unsalvagable level.

For me if the report singles out that the damage to the layer has been stemmed, then this is a great success story for evidence based scientific assessment and damage limitation of a serious problem. That perhaps a situation caused [unintentionally] by man on the planets ability to sustain life as we know it, can be rectified by reasoned collective action led by scientific methodology to prevent a positive feedback point of no return. It provides hope that a workable solution plan to counter man made climate change (which is different to this phenomena I might add.) is achievable in a reasoned and pertinent timescale. We may get ourselves unwittingly in these scrapes, but we can get out of them if the will is there.

*I'm pretty sure some bright spark somewhere is going to comment that if we aren't all going to get "cooked" by the ozone hole (usually worded "well they used to say that the ozone hole would kill us all.") after all then perhaps it should follow that man made climate change won't be such a big deal after all. Let us remember that it took a concerted effort to remove the CFC's. It didn't magically mend itself. Which I'm sure will be forgotten by the writers of this kind of stuff.

Some Pope Related Stuff.

I was in two minds as to whether to comment on the Popes visit to the UK. I mean what more can really be said? Obviously Richard Dawkins is going to have something to say on the matter. Obviously a lot of the right wing press are going to get in a lather about a bloke who openly espouses the evils of secularism, permissiveness and gay rights. I imagine there was a run of collective pant wetting going on when "Papa Ratzi" attacked multiculturalism and the fact that you can't call Christmas Christmas in case it offends other faiths. All the stuff they say that the liberal elite ban anyone from discussing, by discussing it at every opportunity; every fucking day in their columns(hmmm). In short the whole debate had more straw men being tossed about the room, than a boozy row at the Gummidge household. Oh and the Pope compared atheists to the Nazis. In short the whole thing has been pretty depressing reading. I won't repeat verbatim any of the specific charges levelled at the "militant atheists" and "anti Christian bigots", but let us look at some of the general charges condensed down here:

THE COST OF THE VISIT.
The total cost of the papal visit is estimated in the range of £12 million. There have been concerns about the Pope being treated as a head of state for his trip, and that the Vatican doesn't behave like one. It is immune from UN human rights charters for one instance. That was the point in the letter signed by 50 people, including Richard Dawkins; Stephen Fry; Johann Hari etc. They agreed that they didn't want the pope banned,(undemocratic) but could the Vatican have stumped up some of the cash. (they're hardly having to patch their boots up are they?) It's a legitimate question and was not asked in a particularly rude manner. In fact it is hard to see why the Mail accused Stephen Fry of being "shrill" (though I can see the context for that connotation.) I couldn't see him mouthing off incoherently in anything I saw him mentioning the visit. It's a free country. People have a right to ask whether their taxes are being spent [as they see it] fairly. Catholics do make up only 9% of the UK's population**

MILITANT ATHEISTS.
The militant atheist charge is as old as the hills. It would be much easier for the Church of Rome (and all the other faiths) if atheists were good atheists. That is they were of the "I don't believe, but do respect belief variety. Even now religious criticism is still considered a bit "bad mannered". Of course this leads to the secondary charge of militant atheists "picking on" Christians. In a way I feel that some Christians do see what is legitimate criticism about the veracity of their faith, and leeway their religion receives -as being picked on or persecution. No idea should be considered off limits for sceptical analysis in a free country. Indeed secular humanism and atheism itself are subject to some of the most unpleasant abuse from critics of these. The pope himself said that an atheistic world view leads to the fricking Nazis, who tried to erase God, which they didn't. That secular values will lead to anarchy as religion and morality are intertwined. He has a right to say that of course. I mean what else is he going to say about secularism and atheism, which are the two single most threats to a faith based system. It is no wonder they rattle the devout so much. As I said free speech means that they should be allowed to voice their concerns. It is a stretch to say that the "militant atheists" had that much of an affect on the whole thing. Dawkins gave a speech. No citizens arrest was made. The red tops barely mentioned the protests at all. The BBC of course covered all sides (and got flack off the conservatives in the press for doing so.) and certainly did not privilege the "Catholic haters" over the Pope. In fact the "New Atheist" movement as a whole isn't as widely known as the religious would imply, how much influence they have outside the dining rooms of the Guardianistas is unknown. The atheist bus thing smacked of trying a bit too hard. And has anyone ever seen someone wearing those atheist T-shirts on the Richard Dawkins site, cause I never have!

I also got a bit fed up hearing right wing pundits banging on about how liberals /the left / cultural Marxists or whatever were out of line or "sneery" at the Pope. I mean how else where they going to think about him. He's called gay marriage a "great evil", all the stuff about contraceptives and AIDS in Africa. His unfettered conservatism, to name a few. They are going to be a bit pissed off with him. There would be something wrong if they weren't. It is no good moaning about people moaning about someone with controversial views. Yeah they are going to want to counter them. It is .... free speech remember. (I'm not supporting spouting a load of straw men and crude abuse passed of as "debate." If you want to fully embrace the spirit of free speech be prepared to stick some really good points in there.)

THE POPES ROLE IN THE CHILD ABUSE.
This is really the smoking gun. The ecclesiastical elephant in the room. Probably the main point of contention for both the secular humanists and the greater public at large, vis a vis the popes visit. The child abuse scandals of the Church of Rome are disgraceful., and the response from the Vatican is as well. I think it is hard to exonerate Ratzinger of any wrong doing in the whole affair. He held the head position of the title of the dodgy sounding "Congregation of the Doctrine Faith." which meant he was the head honcho for implementing Catholic law throughout the church, and was thus put into the orbit of the crisis. We have heard that he was warned of pedarest priests and resorted to censuring them, or subjecting them to ecclesiastical (not criminal) hearings (see post here.), and in 2001, writing letters to every bishop saying that on no accounts should they go outside the church to deal with this (he called this communications blackout "the goods of the church" in 1985.). It is not hard to conclude that because of who he is, he has evaded any criminal scrutiny for the role in abetting the cover up of child abuse, and putting the doctrines and pomp of the church before the welfare of living; feeling children. I really cannot say that I know of anyone else in a Western democracy who could have evaded any form of criminal investigation as easily as the Pope. I don't consider it impertinent of the likes of say - Johann Hari of the Indy, to question the legality of the Popes actions. As it happens another (now former) high ranking member of an organisation that has been heavily involved in the case around the abuse and death of a youngster; Peter Connely or baby P, has been reported in the papers, running concurrent with the Popes visit. Sharon Shoesmith the former director of Harringey children's services has been testifying before an education select committee, defending her role in the whole tragic affair. It is interesting to highlight the very hostile press she receives from the Sun newspaper in comparison to the generally favourable coverage the same paper gave to the Pope.

As for myself. I don't think the protests against his visit were out of line, and even if I did, as I said before it is a country with free speech so it would be tough if i did think so. The Pope should really hand over all the documents the church has on the abuse over to the police, should tell the practitioners of Catholicism in Sub Saharan Africa that God came to him in a dream and told him that condoms were OK with him. But I'm guessing neither will actually happen. Nor did I think that David Cameron would have stopped the visit, or that a citizens arrest would occur. I don't believe that; apart from practicing Catholics of course -most people were that interested. I think a load of kids and nuns were bussed around to bolster numbers though. His embrace of the Archbish of Canterbury was quite nice though. Showing that even religious divides can be bridged with time. I actually don't think Ratzinger is all that popular anyway in the UK. Certainly less so than his predecessor The reader comments in the papers are much less positive than the editorials. There is quite a lot of contempt for the way the church has carried on, and some of Ratzingers views on contraception and homosexuality. He is largely seen as an archaic figure in an archaic institution. A bit like Christianity in general in this country.

**And another thing. The Tax Payers Alliance who get about five bajillian huffy soundbites in the press every time something a bit left wing gets even a few quid of tax payers money, were mysteriously silent about the 12 million of tax their "allies" forked out for a minority faith. I'm sure they just forgot or something. But I bet they would have somehow remembered if another religion had received that much for a visit to the UK.

Facebook is Evil! (part 569million)

Journalists have never been shy of expressing their disdain for the Internets ability to "open up" amateurs and laymen to the world of media and public writing, which was a more protected sphere of exclusivity before hand. This will inevitably take the form of Twitter being derided as a load of saddos talking shite on a computer and the inevitable "evils" of Facebook. Yes it will be one extended gripe about Joe public dumbing down standards with their evil "modern media". I understand why this mentality exists with some writers / journalists. It is their turf that is being invaded, and it seems that the blogosphere and things like on line fanfic and the better youtube home made productions are blurring the lines between professional and lay media even further. But sometimes I really wish that some of the writers who sound off about this kind of stuff - would actually do some research into the things they are criticising, without visibly demonstrating that they don't have the foggiest about what they are on about. I mean people like you! Sandra Parsons. Who writes:

"Thanks mostly to the internet, the past decade has seen the end of exclusivity.

Rather than reading a book and giving serious thought to an issue, people skim information on Google and use the instantaneous Twitter to tell the whole world the first banal thought that comes into their head.

On Facebook teenagers compete to see how many ‘virtual’ friends they can accrue — I’m told the new target is one million — yet learn little about real friendship with all its complex levels of intimacy and trust.

Anyone, no matter how witless, can write a blog or put up a video on YouTube and garner thousands of ‘hits’ within hours. Privacy, reticence and modesty are seen as old-fashioned while let-it-all-hang-out voyeurism, via reality TV shows, is the order of the day."

I think the book /Internet skimming thing is in response to some research about how the two affect performance (I think it was something like that.) No one is saying never read reference books ever again. The Internet is very convenient for looking stuff up time wise, and access wise. That's why it is popular for that kind of thing. Anyone who wants to do hard research, knows that proper reference texts are better, and that wikis should be taken with a liberal pinch of salt.

The facebook rant is rather daft as well. I get so fed up with that "Facebook is no substitute for real friends." You reckon? Of course it isn't! Everyone knows that! I don't ever recall the creators of Facebook ever stating that was its intention. That is overlooked by people who point this out. It was never designed to substitute for real human interaction. Put it to bed!! The million freind goal would be extremely difficult for anyone non famous. It would require a hell of a lot of random strangers responding positively to a friend request. Hmmm. Again if she had bothered to learn about facebook; beyond second hand anecdotes - she would have known this. The "anyone can get thousands of hits on a blog/YouTube instantaneously. Yeah right! Because everyone just decides to check out some random uploading / article for the hell of it. Possibly you might chance upon becoming a viral hit, or get some publicity by a popular public medium. But if you aren't well known fame could be elusive. Don't worry Sandra, you still have quite a head start with a newspaper column!

PS. Isn't it a bit hypocritical of the Mail [Parsons column appears there] and other papers that rigorously bang on about the importance of competition in the free market and in regards to "countering" our licence funded BBC, are the first to scream blue murder and try and (rhetorically) pull the drawbridge up when their niche may be encroached upon? (still a long way to go though.) It must be working, what with all those Corens and Lawsons and Lee Potters writing articles. Christ even Littlejohns daughter gets a job at the Mail. Nice to see 'em keeping it in the family!

Glad "Burn a Quran Day" Was Extinguished

Pastor Terry Jones of (what is it with Right Wing American Christians who are named after the Monty Pythons? Terry Jones, Sarah Palin.) and his plan to have a "Burn a Koran Day." on the 9th anniversary of 9/11 was one of the stupidest ideas anybody has ever had. I just cannot conceive of any PR stunt that could possibly be more retarded than "BOKD" All it would have done was make the few followers this prat has look even more stupid than they usually are. It would have also have given some of the ultra radical Islamist nutcases something else to pretend to get angry and shouty about,whilst burning a flag or two. And God knows we need more of that kind of thing. Thankfully Pastor Monty Python has called it off, so it perhaps didn't have the whole effect that it may have done (though I did hear on the radio that three soldiers were shot in Afghanistan, that may have been motivated by the plans.).

This whole story exemplifies the juxtaposition between the inherent silliness of fundamentalist adherence to the major religions and the deadly seriousness of the consequences that can follow from fundamentalists acting on adherence to their religion. I might (slightly) concede that it could be conceivably possible, but probably extremely unlikely (IMO) that a creator of some sort might have ... well created stuff. It makes sense that mankind would join the dots and create a mythos of deities who made all this stuff to satisfy a teleological explanation for the universe. So from that point I suppose the quintessential nature of gods in human cultures isn't too puzzling. But I'm sorry - anyone who thinks that the Bible and Qu'ran are 100 percent carrot truth the word of god, is frankly kidding themselves. It is self evidently obvious to any passive observer that they were just made up by a bunch of semi literate people a zillion years ago, and that they are so full of plot holes and inconsistencies, that they make Star Trek Generations look like a well thought out piece of fiction. God no more wrote or had a hand in those books, than he did to the instruction manual for a 53 reg; four door diesel Ford Focus. I mean where to start showing the reason they weren't written by god? The fact that the rules set down in Leviticus are so obviously for a bronze age bunch of peasants, and would have little relevance if reenacted to the governance of say modern Manchester (though I'm sure that even those ancient judges would make a better stab at running Bolton council than the ones we seem to have had in the past 20 years.) . That god loftily creates the world and then just keeps banging on about a bunch of Palestinian tribes. That if you wanted to incarnate yourself as a man to redeem mankind. Then perhaps getting yourself nailed to a plank of wood after about 30 years is a bit of a wasted opportunity. How much good could J.C have done if hew lived to about 95? To the fact that dictating your memoirs to an illiterate 7th century Arab merchant is pretty fricking stupid. He should have waited a few centuries and put them up on twitter or something. It is hard to disagree with Sam Harris when he said that if the entire human race woke up with collective amnesia, shorn of all cultural relevance and context, that these books would largely be discarded as nonsense. These books are the work of human beings. Flawed, often cruel by our standards but the work of human beings, and not some gold standard lifestyle guide by a superbeing, and that is the problem of treating them as such. Humans are often wrong, callous and just plain stupid, and that is why no persons opinions should be considered infallible, as ten thousand levels of trouble will inevitably follow if they are treated as such.



That was the thing that bothered me so much about what happened 9 years ago. It wasn't the sheer brutal audacity of the attacks. Or the inhuman callousness of what these brainwashed fuckwits pulled off. It was the sheer pointlessness of the attacks. What is so utterly heartbreaking and tragic about the attack is that those 3000 people who were burned, crushed and vapourised in the crime itself, was that they died for nothing, nothing at all. They were wiped out for a cause that had 0 percent salience. Nil. Most terrorists and wars ostensibly claim to have some material cause such as resources, or a homeland etc. But not with attacks like these. They are literally killing for fairy stories. They thought that a sky pixie wanted them to fly "the others" into wall at 500 mph. That this pastor thought that the creator of the entire universe wanted him to burn "the others" book, because obviously that is high on the list of priorities for the high lord of all space time itself. I can't think of anything as tragically stupid as killing human beings, or persecuting others - because a few badly written books tell you to. That is essentially all religiously motivated violence boils down to.


How fucking tragic.

Class Doesn't Define Morality.

I've been forced to have a small hiatus on here as my bloody computer has been playing up all week. But as it is now running OK, I can post a few things that have been going on this last week; but was unable to comment on as my laptop, like all other computers - hates me. Pretty much everyone knows that Wayne Rooney, a sort of northern Mr Potato Head, crossed with a dented mirrors reflection of Shreks face - has been caught paying "wannabee WAG" Jennifer Thompson, as well as other girls too - over a grand for casual sex and threesomes. This has unsurprisingly caused a bit of a stir. Rooney is married to Coleen obviously, and she is of course expecting his child. It has cemented the opinion of many that footballers are overpaid women haters who use their knobs to double up as a brain. Miss Thompson herself has come under the spotlight also. She comes from a privileged background, with a father who is high up in the oil business, as well as attending Lords independent, a small prestigious private school in Bolton. This causes a schizoid response in the press, and is the reason for my post, I actually think the story is more depressing than interesting.

I was interested by a headline from Bel Mooney, the Mails agony aunt, who penned the article with the following rhetorical question:

What have we come to when middle-class girls like this see whoring as a career choice?

The article itself is not quite the snobbish class fest it appears. It's pretty depressing that for all the advances in women's rights, girls are succumbing to a world that feeds into some of the basest level of misogyny in our supposedly more enlightened times. There is also the concerns of their physical and psychological welfare. I can't imagine that anyone could be really happy within themselves at this kind of thing. I don't dispute Bels sentiment in that regard. It is the underlying assumptions in the headlines. There is a potent undercurrent in the likes of the Mail with stuff like this, that being middle class; or what is termed being from "a respectable family" (the game often gets given away) means you are automatically morally better off, not just financially. This is bull, and I find it is patronising to the many hard working working class people who want the best for theme selves and their families too. It must be a shock to see that an affluent background doesn't always seem to guarantee a strong moral calibre. There is also no strong negative correlation between family income and lower levels of casual sex / sexual partnerships. Middle class kids can and do go off the rails too, it ain't always a working class game. I'd arguably say that some middle class kids are more vulnerable to having rebellious phases of booze and Skins parties, especially if they have weak parents who can stump up the cash to fund this lifestyle. Working class kids often have less leisure time and have to take up employment earlier than their better off counterparts, denting the time and cash they have to pursue such a lifestyle. She apparently built up her circuit base in Bolton's largest nightclub J2. This requires access to at least some easy cash supply. It's not like stuff like this is new anyway. Many women of all levels of society, and from pretty much any time period you care to mention have found that wealthy men, and ugly men with cash will pay handsomely in lavish places to get their rocks off. It's not all impoverished women in back alleyways having sex for 50 quid a shot to survive. Now I'm certainly not condoning prostitution as a career option, not at all. Prostitution is very risky to the [for the purpose of this argument] women herself. Their is the risk of STD's and STD transmission. Sex work can often put prostitutes in the orbit of criminal circles etc. However Jennifer is not the first women to discover that pussy can translate to poundsigns.

There we are. It's also interesting to see that she appears to be the guiltier party of the two [Rooney and herself] if we take into account of the press coverage. But that is another story.

French Don't Float Some Folks Boat.

There has been a plan put forward by the coalition, with their French counterparts to share the joint(ish) responsibility of running the three new flagships of the European nations aircraft carrier fleets. Two of the new carriers are ours, along with one of the French carriers. By pooling resources (the ships will always be under the command of their home countries.) the two nations defence forces can save a couple of bob. One of the new British carriers can't really be scrapped as it is three quarters complete, and would be very costly to get rid of,- ironically in order to cut costs. I mean you can't just take it to the tip for christ sake. There are strategic questions of potential conflicts of interest. Say Britain undertook a naval mission against French interests, or vice - versa. But the finer points of the pros and cons have been drowned out in the letters to the Mail and Daily Star I have seen. No the only downside there is the French themselves, for being ... like - French! The enemy!

How original.

I don't know too much about coordinating defence. If I were in charge of the military, we'd be negotiating the terms of surrender to the armed forces of Andorra. Where the most dangerous weapon is the generals parade baton. But I can see some benefits of sharing costs. Directly unrelated to this story, (for one thing, the plan involves sharing the cost of maintaining flag carriers. Not putting the entire MOD under the froggies commands, as some of the more hysterical responses imply.). a pan-European navy has actually been proposed in the past, in regards to things such as patrolling for illegal immigrant and human trafficking to Europe. As well as co-ordinating, or at the very least - co-operating in the defence of European waters, rather than each country doing their own thing. It is ironic that the former would probably be popular with the Star / Mail. It' s amusing to see them trying to see whose worser, when stuff they don't like are at odds with each other. I thought the Mail approved of prudence? Not if it involves Johnny foreigner getting a nosey in on the John Bulls armada they don't! Fuck thrift and stick it to the Frenchies!

The hysterical comments about Britain being taken over, and the loss of 1000 years of freedom - from people who have read the headlines and no further, and the jingoistic articles that have been written in relation to the story, about how we have been enemies since the dawn of time -are profoundly depressing. Not only do they dig up all the past antagonisms, and imply that a history of adversary is an immutable state of affairs. They also perpetuate the stereotype of Britain as some old fashioned jingoistic bunch of isolationists. Which is all rather depressing really.