Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant

800 "Saints" All At Once!

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Mon, 13 May 2013 20:51:00 +0000

Pope Frank made 800 new saints. That's so many at one time! How can he do that? I thought there were supposed to be miracles associated with the canonization?

Well, I'm glad you pointed that out, because what happened, see, was that 800 Christians were killed (martyred, really) by Ottoman Turks in 1480 (talk about your long time before recognition). What's supposed to happen is there should be two "miracles" attributed to the would-be-saint(s). Normal stuff: curing cancer, stopping the Sun, restoring an amputated limb...pretty standard, really.

As it turns out, all 800 of these folks were killed, "in hatred of the faith", so we can toss out one "miracle" claim, because Jesus. The second is that a nun (who has *NO REASON TO LIE OR MAKE SHIT UP*), who had cancer, according to the Church (who have *NO REASON TO LIE OR MAKE SHIT UP*), was cured after praying to a memorial to the 800 folks. So, that wraps that up, right people?

National Research Coucil of Dorks

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Sat, 11 May 2013 03:16:00 +0000

Ughh.

"Scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value," National Research Council president John McDougall said in the linked article. Right next to him, our Minister of Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, said, "There is (sic) only two reasons why we do science and technology. First is to create knowledge ... second is to use that knowledge for social and economic benefit. Unfortunately, all too often the knowledge gained is opportunity lost."

It's sort of like our Canadian version of John McCain and Sarah Palin mocking fruit fly research. Never mind that research done for interest's sake often leads to amazing and innovative developments for business, medicine, and more; these two guys really don't seem to have any idea about how science works.

Then there's this: “The day is past when a researcher could hit a home run simply by publishing a paper on some new discovery,” Goodyear said. “The home run is when somebody utilizes the knowledge that was discovered for social or economic gain.” Mr. Goodyear, in my opinion, hasn't the first clue of how science is done, what leads to "home runs", or how to get away from political talking points. Business doesn't drive scientific inquiry - curiousity and intellect does.

Boo, you two. Boo.

Thanks to Phil Plait for tipping me off to this and, you know, for being generally awesome.

Health Canada Licenses Homeopathic "Vaccines"

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Wed, 08 May 2013 23:50:00 +0000

I was just hipped to something terrible. Eve Rickert (aka @talksciencetome) mentioned that Health Canada has licensed so-called homeopathic "vaccines". How Health Canada, which states as its first goal that it, "Relies on high-quality scientific research as the basis for our work", could let anything homeopathic enter its recommendations is beyond me. Just saying that you rely on high-quality scientific research means that homeopathic mixtures/tinctures/concoctions/potions/fucking-magic-swirly-dust-pills (hereafter known as MTCPF pills) are gone from the shelves. Keep them, if you must, but don't "license" them or give them any sort of actual endorsement by a government organization that purports to have scientific rigor as a core principle.

I mean, for shit's sake, Health Canada has a whole page on ear candles that kicks the legs right out from underneath the charlatans who sell those stupid things.

Perhaps the Health Canada's General Questions - Regulation of Natural Health Products will lead us to some answers. Here we find this quote:

Under the Food and Drugs Act, NHPs (natural health products) must be classified as either a food or a drug since there is no other category in which to classify them. Because NHPs are taken for therapeutic reasons and not for caloric purposes or to address hunger, they are more similar to drugs than food.

Wait a second. So if I eat sugar pills for "therapeutic purposes", that makes sugar pills "drugs"? What happened to relying on "high-quality scientific research"?

Then there's this paragraph:

During consultations on NHPs, Canadians consistently asked for controls to make sure what is on the label is in the bottle and ensure a pre-market assessment of health claims. While creating another category distinct from both food and drugs was considered, an amendment at the level of the Act would have been necessary. Because the timelines and legislative process needed for a change of this magnitude would be long, it was decided that natural health products would be considered drugs under the Act, but with a set of regulations specific to NHPs.

This seems to be saying that Canadians want labels to be honest and reflect what's in the bottles they're buying (obviously). This is not the case with homeopathic MTCPF pills. They're sugar pills, as has been demonstrated, again and again. It's not medicine, they're not "drugs", they're nothing. If you take homeopathy for anything serious, like, say, eczema, you'll likely die.

all manufacturers, importers, packagers and labellers of NHPs use good manufacturing practices (GMPs) and have site licences. All NHPs that used to have a Drug Identification Number (DIN) now have either a Natural Product Number (NPN) or a Homeopathic Medicine Number (DIN-HM).

Maybe this is just my extreme bias showing, but having the word "medicine" associated with anything homeopathic is annoying and, quite frankly, disrespectful to actual medicine and the people involved in making/distributing it.

Say what you will about the pharmaceutical industry (and you should, and many important people have), for the most part, the scientists and R&D people know what they're doing. They put out medicine that saves and prolongs lives. They do this by doing real science; real, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that ensure, as well as can be, that the drugs work and have an actual effect that outweighs any side-effects. Do they get it wrong sometimes? Absolutely.

But homeopathy is just "Big Homeo" - they sell sugar pills with literally no active ingredient for a massive markup to a public who they purposely keep in the dark as to what homeopathy actually is. Most people on the street just think homeopathy is "natural medicine" and that it is safe and effective, because, hey, Health Canada says they need a fucking "homeopathic medicine number". Thanks for nothing, Health Canada. Let's try to get back on the side of "high-quality scientific research", shall we?

Where Do You Get Your Morals From?

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Wed, 08 May 2013 03:38:00 +0000

First of all, holy crap, I haven't written anything in a long long time. There kept being these stories in the news from all over the world that I thought, "Man, I should blog about that...", then my kid would take a poop in the living room and priorities would change and it'd be two weeks later and there'd be a new Pope and I'd think, "Man, I should blog about that...."

Yes, I meant to put "poop" and "pope" in close juxtaposition.

Secondly, the Amanda Berry story is terrifying and disgusting and, thankfully, in possession of a happy ending. I really try not to be a death penalty guy, but goddamn is it hard sometimes.

Ok, on to what I actually want to write about. I get asked quite often while engaging in theological debates/discussions about morality. We see it all the time in debates online when the religious side bring up morals and asks, usually pointedly, some version of, "Well where do you get your morals from, if not from the Bible/Koran/Torah/Special Holy Book That Means So Much To So Many Of Us?"

Usually their argument boils down to: your morality *has* to come from somewhere, and it *can't* come from you, so my book has these really great ideas that you use in your life, therefore you got your morality from my book/God(s)!

A lot of the time, "moral relativism" is brought up as the evil of all evils that you MUST be on board with if you don't subscribe to biblical/religious morality. What this line of thought lacks, in my experience, is the knowledge that pretty much all religious morality is a hodge-podge of adapted and updated religious ideas. In fact, A.J. Jacobs wrote a book called, The Year of Living Biblically which, in its quirky and flity way, shows that you *can't* live by all the rules in the bible. It's impossible in modern society...or even way back when the thing was written.

The explanation that I use for modern secular morality comes from our roads. When I say, "our roads", I mean the roads all over the planet made by people. If you go to any country (particularly with automobiles) you'll see that they have rules for driving. Some on the left, some on the right; speed limits vary; merging, signalling, and stopping at intersections all have their rules. How did we come to have these agreed upon rules?

We talked about it. A bunch of people sat down and thought about what makes sense. These rules have changed over time and continue to be adapted and re-written, but they all come from people. They are, on the whole, coherent and make sense when explained in the context of the culture and society they came from. Talking about issues is how we solve problems.

Morality is no different, really. We are social animals who live together in groups. We then have rules for behaviour that make life with each other more pleasant and productive. You can't let someone go around stealing, killing, and raping (no "Commandment" against that last one, by the way) and still remain part of the group. So what do we do? We sit together and hash out some basic rules for how to get along. It really isn't that hard to see how morality (or driving laws, or rules for flying planes...) got its groundwork laid.

So there. I'll try to write again before the next major meteor shower happens...but don't hold me to it. There's always some poop to deal with.

Joey Ratz Gone - And Good Riddance

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:59:00 +0000

As it is March 1st, many of you may feel that crispness in the air that signifies no one on Earth believing they are infallible. That's right, Pope Joey Ratz has stepped down from his golden throne for "health reasons". You may also be wondering why it is that I would put "health reasons" in quotes because, geez, why would the Vatican make that up? I mean, he's old and stuff and being the Pope is a pretty demanding job. Well....

See, I listened to the Geologic Podcast last week and George Hrab mentioned a documentary he watched on HBO called Mea Maxima Culpa. In this documentary, it tells the tragic story of a group of deaf boys who were molested by a priest. The boys eventually do something about it and bring the story to the attention of the police, the legal institution, and ultimately, the Vatican. Now, through documentation and evidence, the story shows that as of 2001, then Cardinal Joey Ratz gets signed into Vatican Water Buffalo Law by then Pope JPII, that any and all child abuse cases will pass through Ratz. So from 2001, Ratz knew about every abuse case from all over the world and did nothing about it, hid abusers, stonewalled victims and reporters, and basically was the worst kind of scumbag protectors of pedophiles.

Don't you think it's funny (weird, not "haha") that this documentary comes out and now *cough cough* the Pope seems to be *cough cough* feeling a bit under the *cough* weather? He is explicitly named as someone who is not just knowledgeable, but the most knowledgeable about child rape in the church, and the primary one who kept everything under his gayly flowing robes and stupid fish hat. But no, he's old and decrepit. Let's run with that and see who buys it. *cough*

Seriously, look at these dudes:

Some may see serious-looking men at a serious ceremony to decide on an important leader for a vast religion of great import. I see a bunch of nipple-headed jackasses who've wasted their lives on harmful bullshit.

One Minute Medical School

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:58:00 +0000

I love this guy. He does medical concepts and anatomy videos in one minute that are concise and very well explained. Check him out. Here's the latest vid on Herd Immunity:

Indian Gang-Rape Commentary - Good Article

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:06:00 +0000

There is a high occurence of rape/gang-rape in India, along with high levels of societal violence. After a recent attack where a 23 year old girl was viciously raped and beaten, then thrown from a moving bus, protests have been on-going and the crowds have been demanding a change in the laws to make rape a capital crime.

An article in The Hindu argues that the problem is deeper than that and bringing the death penalty into play is not the right answer. His argument is that Indian males have to be brought up differently and the attitude towards women by everyone have to change.

This idea of a woman as a fully formed human subject remains a difficult concept to embrace.

If this doesn't change, making legal threats or throwing the death penalty around won't make a difference.

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA Launches "Worst Idea Ever" Campaign

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:16:00 +0000

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president (isn't that the title Mr. Burns once gave to a dog?) of the National Rifle Association, NRA, said in a news conference that, in the wake of the horrific tragedy in Connecticut, every school in the United States should have an armed police officer stationed within its walls of education.

Because, if Hollywood has taught me anything - and it has - it's that more guns is *always* the answer.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"

Weeeellll...that's not entirely true. Let me just say two words by way of a response: Fort Hood. Nidal Malik Hasan was one "bad guy with a gun" who lost his marbles on an army base, surrounded by "good guys with guns", but he still killed 13 people (one pregnant woman whose fetus also died) and wounded 29 others. It seems like more guns isn't really the answer.

Or the other option would be to have sensible gun ownership laws that prohibit having military style assault rifles. I KNOW! I KNOW! I'm suggesting that infringing upon your rights JUST A SMIDGE maybe, just might, sort of prevent the mentally ill persons who generally commit these types of random attacks from being able to get hold of weapons that do tremendous damage.

His agenda firmly in mind, LaPierre is saying that in the interest of keeping children and the innocent safe from super rare occurrences of gun violence, he would suggest putting children and the innocent within grasping range of guns at all times. That seems odd to me.

Hey, did you know that on the same day that the tragedy happened in Connecticut, some jackass went crazy in Henan province in China with a knife and stabbed 22 kids between 6 and 11 years old at an elementary school? I can hear LaPierre now saying something like, "See, knives kill people too! You can't ban knives. Guns don't kill people - people kill people."

Except for one tiny little skooshy small weeny bit of a difference: none of the 22 kids died in China. Not one of them. The assailant was tackled and arrested, the injured were taken to hospitals and treated, and no one got buried. Guns *do* kill people, and they do it WAY more effectively than other tools, mostly because, well, that's what guns are designed to do. You can't make a nice Cobb salad with a military assault rifle.

Well, the avocado might have a bit too much gun oil on it....

Ben Stein (and an Anonymous Internet Author), Fisked

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:13:00 +0000

I have seen this attributed to the clueless git and evolution denier Ben Stein. I will share it here with my commentary throughout in bold.

Apparently the White House referred to Christmas Trees as Holiday Trees for the first time this year, (No, the White House did not - it never has) which prompted CBS presenter, Ben Stein, to present this (terrible) piece which I would like to share with you. (This forwarding bit was added to the original, still mistranscribed piece, in 2011. Stein originally said his short piece in 2005.)

The following was (partly) written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a nativity scene, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. (And most people don't mind either, except that displaying such religious iconography on public land violates the U.S. Constitution's first amendment, the establishment clause. If you want to have your Christmas/Hannukah/Kwanzaa/Saturnalia/Newtonmas displays on your front lawn, your back lawn, on your roof, all over your church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or private school, knock yourself out. But not on public land.)

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. (Pushed around? You can't be 73% of the population and still get "pushed around". Either you're the majority or you're not. The whining gets old when you're only doing it because you're not getting to "push around" the minorities by putting up your particular brand of religious decorations everywhere. The end of the year has a lot of holidays, deal with it.) I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. (It's not an "explicitly atheist" country - it's a secular country. There is a difference which Stein is willfully ignoring. An "atheist" country would say, "There is/are no god(s), the idea is silly and childish and archaic and misogynistic and barbaric." A "secular" country says, "Because we can not, in fairness, promote any one religion over another, you can display your decorations and declare your faith in your places of worship and your homes, but not in any area publicly used or paid for by tax dollars". See the difference?) I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. (Nothing is being shoved down anything. You are reacting to what you *think* should be your rights being denied to you for rational and fair reasons, which you don't like. You are more comfortable doing the shoving down throats.)

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God? (Nonsense - you can worship whatever god(s) you want to all day long if you choose. Stop being a dramapuss.) I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

(From here on the letter was penned by some anonymous internet person.)

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina). (This bit is misquoted and was not in response to Katrina, but to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'. (What a horrible thing to say. Blaming the victims of a terrorist attack for their deaths because they didn't pray enough to her god. Disgusting.)

In light of recent events... terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. (It wasn't O'Hare that said it, it's the U.S. Constitution, as noted above.) The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. (Yeah, it also says all this horrible stuff. Conveniently left out of most readings and arguments.) And we said OK. (No, you didn't. You fought tooth and nail and lost.)

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay. (Dr. Spock's son did not commit suicide. To quote from the linked article, however: "An ironic twist to this legend is that it *is* true about a psychologist who advocated a child-rearing approach diametrically opposed to the one Dr. Spock would later champion." That psychologist was John B. Watson, who advocated minimal love for children, not to hug them, not to let them sit on your lap, to only give a kiss at bedtime, and to shake their hand in the morning. *His* son, William, committed suicide in 1954. I guess his, "little personality" was "warped". What was that about, "knowing what you're talking about"?)

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.' (That, or mental illness is an issue that needs to be dealt with in a better way.)

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. (First, show me that there *is* a god and a hell, then we can start talking)

Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. (You shouldn't believe what the newspapers say until you check it out. You *definitely* shouldn't believe what the bible says, because it is a collection of Bronze Age mythology and fairy tales)

Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. (The people who think twice are the ones who wonder if it's appropriate to "shove their religion down other people's throats". FYI: it's not.)

Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. (No one is suppressing public discussion. People object to overzealous Christians - or any other belief system - getting to espouse their viewpoint in a public forum, which, again, is against the U.S. Constitution's first amendment.)

Are you laughing yet? (Sort of, but only at the sheer volume of misinformation, mistakes, and outright lies in this short article.)

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. (No, it's because this is a horribly written piece of religious propaganda...and I'll take it apart on my blog instead.)

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. (Replace "God" in that sentence with, "Vishnu". Are you still ok with it? What about, "Odin"? How about, "Allah"? The "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? None of those are good? Hmmm...interesting....)

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what a bad shape the world is in. (I won't pass it along, but again, I'll post it and dissect it for the worthless piece of pseudo-religious detritus it is.)

My Best Regards, Honestly (Ha!) and respectfully, (Oh, please)

Ben ("I wouldn't know a good argument if it hit me in the face with a trenching shovel") Stein

Pope Ratz Blesses Ugandan "Kill the Gays" Lawmaker

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:46:00 +0000

Pope Benedict blessed the speaker of the Ugandan parliment and "Kill the Gays" initiative pusher, Rebecca Kadaga, on December 12 at a pilgrim's mass at the Vatican. I have made fun of the pontiff before and certainly will again, but it takes a special level of indifference and intentional blindness to go ahead with a ceremony like this one. It reminds me of the Intelligence Squared debate with Christopher Hitchens (rest in peace) and Stephen Fry where the latter said this:Fitting also because of Fry's love of, and work in, Uganda and because this debate was in 2009, the same year that the bill in question was given to Ugandans as a "Christmas gift" to the population. Incidentally, if you have not watched that entire debate, do so at your earliest convenience. It's great.

Thankfully, the bill has stalled in their parliment after international outrage shone a spotlight on their hatred. Funny how some things that are perfectly fine to do in private are embarrassing when everyone can see you doing it. Sort of like bondage. Maybe a bad example to use with the Catholic church....

The influence of U.S. evangelists on Ugandan lawmakers was examined in this 2010 article in the Sydney Morning Herald. It is also discussed on the Rachel Maddow Show from 2009 here:
The disconnect of the Pope from reality - i.e. homosexuals are a part of humanity and are not going away - is not surprising. An old man in a palace who interacts with the world via a bevy of mediators and buffers has about as firm a grip on the situation as, say, as the late Kim Jong Il did.

Shame on Pope Benedict, and shame on any Catholic who does not say something about this.

Dear Mike Huckabee....

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 02:34:00 +0000

Fuck you.

Fuck you more than anything ever. You horrible, sanctimonious, bible-thumping, attention-whoring, headline-grabbing, wannabe-scene-stealing, ignorant, fucking asshole.

Fuck you.

Fifteen Year Old Pakistani Girl, Murdered by Parents

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:55:00 +0000

I cannot even imagine hitting my daughter in the face, let alone doing what Mohammad and Zaheen Zafar did. These two horrific examples of waste murdered their daughter by pouring acid on her face. For looking at a boy. In passing.

This is terribly saddening (if ever there were an understatement, that would be it) and the fact that there is the nauseating idea of "honour" killings floating around at the same time that women in other areas of the planet are carrying around iPhones, wearing whatever they want, running huge international businesses, and holding the highest political offices in various countries, only highlights how backwards and primitive and life-crushingly misogynistic these acid attacks are. They were looked at in a documentary called, "Saving Face" which, if you would like a portion of your soul ground into a fine powder and blown back into your face, this is the film for you.

Take a second and really imagine being there, on the sidewalk when this 15 year old girl saw a boy on a motorbike ride by, and she turned to look at him. She is fifteen - hormones coursing through her body, bodily becoming a woman - and acting exactly the way that fifteen year old girls act. Her father said that looking was wrong and...

"She said 'I didn't do it on purpose. I won't look again.' By then I had already thrown the acid. It was her destiny to die this way," (said) the girl's mother

I am curious: did the mother just carry a thermos of fucking acid around on her at all times just in case of a rule-infraction? I thought some parents at Wal-Mart were quick with a backhand, but this is above and beyond.

And, "It was her destiny to die this way,"? Really? So I guess "destiny" is just another way to say, "she did something I disapprove of and I burned her face until she died". How do you live with someone for fifteen years, raise them, nurture them, teach them about the world, and then just kill them for looking at someone else? It boggles my mind.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan points out that 943 women were killed this year saying:

"...women were callously killed in the name of honour when they went against family wishes in any way, or even on the basis of suspicion that they did so. Women were sometimes killed in the name of honour over property disputes and inheritance rights,"

This kind of betrayal pointed at half of humanity needs to end. We have been shown that empowering women is the fastest and best way to make a community/country better on all fronts....
Rest in peace, CH.

Pakistan, by all appearances, has taken no notice of this and continues to not only tolerate widespread insane violence against women, but its government (and I use that term very loosely) does not even make attempts to fix the situation:

"...the government failed to honor its commitment to reintroduce the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Bill, unanimously passed by the National Assembly in August 2009, but lapsed after the Senate failed to pass it within three months as required under Pakistan's constitution. In April the Supreme Court upheld a 2005 ruling by the provincial Lahore High Court acquitting five of the six men accused of the gang-rape of Mukhtar Mai, a villager from Muzaffargarh district in Punjab province, who was raped on the orders of a village council in 2002." (from Human Rights Watch, 2012, bottom of pg. 3)

A "high court" upholding the acquittal of gang rapists. And Canada is on pretty good diplomatic terms with Pakistan. Awesome.

The parents of the murdered fifteen year old girl need to stay in prison and be counseled and deprogrammed and humanized. Sadly, they will likely be set free once international attention is diverted to the next thing, like Victoria Beckham's footwear.

Back-Pedallling As A Social Tool

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:41:00 +0000

There have been two prominent incidents lately where I have gotten annoyed (he says as thought that were a rare thing). Both of these involved back-pedalling in that the main characters in the stories tried to make the public believe that the offenses they commited were less than egregious.

The first instance was a 25 year old woman who was verbally assaulting an older bus driver. You may have seen this video (warning: violent) where the driver obviously has had enough after the female passenger touches him in some unwanted way and he shuffles over to her saying, "Oh you going to jail now!" and then winds up in a comically exaggerated way as though he was in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, and hits her with an uppercut of epic proportions. He then throws her off the bus.

Should he have hit her? Obviously, no. She later claimed in an interview, when asked about whether she hit the driver and what her role was in the incident, that she has a lawyer and the she could not comment. She also said that it was, "amazing to see that a man would actually hit a woman that hard..." Again, what the driver did was wrong and he should be disciplined accordingly, but I have to point out that when you are dealing with variables like the other people in your daily life, you have no idea what sort of people they are. You don't know how close they are to their breaking point, what sort of fighting experience they have, or what sort of moral compass they possess. There are, sadly, quite a few guys out there who won't hesitate to throw a bomb at anyone who crosses their imaginary line of offense.

Having no awareness of this is part of the reason that this woman got assaulted. When you are used to acting in the manner she does in the bus video and not getting called out for being overly aggressive, you get complacent about throwing attitude at strangers. That is a dangerous situation waiting to happen.

The difference between the woman in the bus video and the woman in the news interview is striking, however, and that is my point. The attempt to come across as the sympathetic sole victim is just not tenable, in my opinion. It's obvious back-pedalling with near blindness to the fact that anyone interested can watch the incident on video from at least two angles.

The second incident is related to the sad story of Amanda Todd, the teenager from British Colombia who killed herself recently after years of bullying abuse. On one of the memorial pages dedicated to Todd, a man named Justin Hutchings wrote, "Thank God this bitch is dead.", which was then seen by a mother reading the tributes. She thought that the comment was extraordinarily callous, so she found out where the man worked through his Facebook page and contacted the employer to inform them. He was then fired.

Hutchings is claiming that he was doing a, "social experiment" and that he wanted to "stir the pot". Now that he has been outed, his response has become the much more soft-sounding, “I’m sorry if I offended anybody and that it wasn’t portrayed in the way it was supposed to be.” I'm not exactly sure how, "Thank God this bitch is dead" is supposed to be portrayed or how it was possibly taken out of context, but I'd love to hear an explanation. Thankfully, here it is:

“It was more or less a social experiment than anything. Just to see if I could put the most blasphemous thing on there...I did this because if there was so much caring and so much emphasis on the fact that people actually care now that she’s dead, then how come society didn’t step in when she was alive?”

This is a common complaint - that there is so much attention paid to her now, what happened when she was alive?

The answer is that the thousands of people from all over the world who are upset about this terrible situation did not know her or her circumstances until the tragedy. Todd undoubtedly had people in her life who tried their best to help her, but until word of the terrible ending went out in the news, no one could care because they were unaware. It's not a good argument to trot out and is insulting to the people in Todd's life who actually were there and tried.

"Hutchings said he has been forced to deal with the consequences of expressing his opinion about Todd’s death by closing his Facebook account. Aw. Boo hoo. Poor little lamb. If only more people cared. Perhaps someone should design a social experiment....

Steve Tourloukis' "Confusion"

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:19:00 +0000

It has come to my attention that a dentist in Hamilton who promotes 'Christian values' in his family:

"...is currently suing his kids’ public school board for failing to warn him in advance about when, speciﬁcally, the school’s teachers would be discussing subjects like family values, marriage and sexuality in class."

He used a letter, known as the, "Traditional Values Letter", as his focal point. The letter was written by a guy named Phil Lees who heads the Family Coalition Party as well as the hilariously named PEACE (Public Education Advocates for Christian Equity), because as we all know, Christians are SO oppressed in this society. I mean, one yearns for the day when Christians can openly worship in buildings large enough for all the congregation to come together within, maybe even have their own school board in this secular society to promote their "values". It's sad how downtrodden these poor people have become. You can hardly even find someone willing to openly admit they're a Christian these days.

Oh, right, it's the opposite of that.

Tourloukis was quoted as saying:

“I’m not an extremist, but I must ensure that my children abstain from certain activities that may include lessons which promote views contrary to our faith...We know other denominations like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims are excused for certain activities. Does our being Christian disqualify us from equitable treatment?”

In other words, "We see those OTHER homophobic, backwards, archaic, religious parents getting to pull their kids out of their classes when any sort of progressive ideas are being taught, so we should be able to keep our collective heads in the sands of the past as well! Waaaaahhhh!"

The letter itself is rather staggering in its cluelessness about how...how...12th century it sounds. For example, check this part out:

“We raise our children from a Biblical-Christian world view and exposing them to concepts and values that are in conflict with the values taught at church and home will lead to confusion"

Do you see what they're doing there? They're equating the word "confusion" with the word "discussion". It's not the same thing at all. When their kids at school are exposed to another child whose family might consist of two moms, that will lead to the first child asking a question at home about the situation. This will make the religious parent(s) have to explain their backwards, homophobic, nonsense to their child, corrupting them with the idea that the two-mom family is somehow "un-natural", "unacceptable", or "unhealthy". That, in turn, may lead to problems at school.

Apart from the homophobic ideas in the letter, there are also basic facts about health and the world around us that they would prefer if their children were ignorant about, thank you very much. For example, they would like it if they could take their kids out of class if/when the teacher starts:

Providing a false sense of security with regard to the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases

Wow. What do you even say to that? It flies in the face of facts and is an attitude more in line with former South African presidents and health ministers. The word, "facepalm" comes to mind.

The letter repeats the former go-to quote of religious people trying to argue for their religion to be included in public schools:

"Secular Humanism, the value system often assumed by public institutions as acceptable to everyone, has been identified as a religion in the courts."

Weeeeellll, yes and no. What they are basing this assumption on is a ruling in the U.S. Supreme court from 1961 (Torcaso v Watson) wherein the judge made an after-note with respect to his decision which said:

Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.

The letter that Tourloukis uses and that Lee wrote is referring to this quote, but they are either deceitful or ignorant because this is clearly referenced on many websites as being an obiter dictum, a legal term meaning, "said in passing" and holding no legal weight. Basically, this has no relevance on the ruling and is the judge's opinion.

The gist here is that, no, secular humanism is not a religion and as has been pointed out, being secular and being religious are antithetical. It would be like trying to be a slovenly neat-freak.

In a rational society, a statement such as the following would set off quote a few alarm bells, mostly because of its resemblance to what a cult would say. Replace "Biblical-Christian" below with "Jim Jones'" and see how scary it becomes:

As a family, we adhere to a set of values based on traditional Biblical-Christian principles. I/we believe that it is our responsibility, to teach these values to our children, and that the application of these values is important for achieving eternal life.

Get that? "Eternal life". I get that you might want to achieve this...I guess you can call it a "goal", but pulling your kids out of school because, "gay people are bad, evolution isn't real, condoms don't protect you, and our Sky Fairy made the Earth for us to use as we will", makes you crazy, and we can't have a public school system based on crazy.

I get that Steve Tourloukis wants his kids to be good people, and that the people from the Family Coalition Party and PEACE just want the best for their children, but keeping young people from hearing ideas contrary to their upbringing and having discussions is how we advance as a species. It's how we move forward and get our next generation to do better than we did at coming together and making this a great place to live (both our country and the world as a whole). Don't be afraid to talk about ideas, people.

Feminism, Harassment, Conferences, and Assholes on the Internet

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:35:00 +0000

Yeah, I know, I never write anymore. Life and all that.

Recently there have been quite a few articles, twitter posts, and blogs about harassment in the atheist/skeptic community either at conferences, on the web, or in real life. It is depressing to see thoughtful, intelligent women leave the online communities they are so integral to (or created outright) because of ignorant, incessant, and cowardly bullying. It is also, sadly, not surprising that the women and men who stand up to these (mostly anonymous) bullies just end up with tens, hundreds, or in some cases thousands of letters and comments making threats and insinuating violence against them.

In real life, hearing about ordeals like this one or this one made me feel like I had to write a quick post to say:

What the fuck is wrong with you guys?

I realize you want to have sex with these women - why else would you start talking to her on the bus? You sure as fuck wouldn't ask *me* what *I'm* reading, even if you didn't see my wedding ring. And really, pulling your dick out in a bar and forcing the girl you want to have sex with to touch it? How many times has that actually worked? Has that EVER worked? I mean, on women you didn't pay to fuck you.

When I was in university we had a guy who hung with us whose pick-up methods were, shall we say, questionable at best. He would essentially ask women directly if they would come back to his place to fuck. His argument was that it saved everyone time; those who weren't interested would tell him to get lost or just walk away, and the very small percentage who said yes, well, he just saved a few hours of dancing and small talk.

At the time I remember thinking that he was a nice guy but I certainly wouldn't want him dating any of my close female friends (I have no sisters...or brothers for that matter). This was the extent of the scummery we dealt with. It seems that now, however, threats of rape and violence are rampant within the anonymous haven of the internet, and at conferences - none of which I have attended yet - there are policies being loudly proclaimed to keep the women safe and the clueless dummies from waving their dicks around like semaphores (or biting women's legs).

I get that in bars, alcohol gets involved and people's boundary identification systems perhaps get a titch off kilter. I have been in a bar before and had a woman in front of me turn around, look at me, then grab my crotch. It was awkward and I put an end to the situation quickly, but this is vastly different from what most women have to endure in a similar encounter.

Reversed, the man is usually larger, stronger, and physically intimidating. In the horrible stories linked above, one woman sat on the bus unable to do anything to stop the terrific abuse being hurled at her while the other was forced to touch the penis of some perveted asshat even though YOU SHOULD NEVER PULL YOUR DICK OUT IN A BAR AND FORCE A STRANGE WOMAN'S HAND ON IT.

That's really one of those things like, "Do Not Use Hair Dryer In Shower"; it's something you never thought you'd need to point out, but here we are, standing in the shower with a bunch of fucking morons and their hair dryers. And somehow, we're getting yelled at and threatened for telling the fucking morons to either get out of the shower or let go of the electronics.

The admittedly vague and circuitous point of this post is to say that I am firmly in the corner of the atheism plus crowd, the inclusive crowd, the humanist/rationalist/skeptic crowd who loves women and treats them as equals on all fronts.

Smarten the Fuck Up, Alberta

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 21:06:00 +0000

People have got complacent, because most of the childhood diseases we still deal with don’t make you very sick. Pertussis is not one of those...It’s an absolutely terrifying disease for the families of the children who have it. With pertussis, the cough is so violent, that children can break their ribs. The coughing fits are so extreme, children can’t get enough oxygen. They turn blue. They have seizures. They stop breathing. Death is not an uncommon result. (from here)

Southern Alberta is having a whooping cough (pertussis) outbreak, and by "outbreak", I mean that there have been 42 cases in the last few months (where there were only 18 cases in the entirety of 2011).

Hm, why is that? Vaccination rates have fallen steadily from 80% of children (barely enough to maintain herd immunity) in 2007, to 73% in 2010 - and only 67-62% in other areas of Alberta. Come the fuck on.

Get your kids vaccinated and if you're an adult, get a booster. Vaccines are one of, if not the greatest (and safest) public health tools ever devised. You can argue with me, but you'd be wrong because you'd be arguing against a mountain of evidence that puts Everest to shame. You've got a mouse penis and you're comparing it to Peter North. You lose.

So you can be on the anti-vaccine side of the coin if you like; by that I mean, "if you like to kill babies with your ignorance", which is what's happening. Get your heads out of your asses and stop being idiots. Stop being parties to babies dying needlessly. You're better than that.

What's The Harm? Detox Death in Quebec

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:47:00 +0000

To all those who say, "What's the harm"? in a little "alternative medicine",here's a not-so-nice little story about a woman who was involved with a group of quack dipshits who eventually - after they took a bunch of her money - killed her.

Chantal Lavigne was only 35 years old. For whatever reason, she believed that "detoxing" was helpful and had done a bunch of them with the quack dipshits running their program out of Ferme Reine de la Paix outside of Montreal. She had done so many, in fact, that she had spent just under $19,000 on the bogus nonsense. It is worth mentioning that she was found,

...covered in mud, wrapped in plastic and blankets...

and that she had,

...spent nine hours lying with (her) head in a box while being encouraged to hyperventilate. (emphasis mine)

Ok, unless you're watching a Godfather marathon, you should never do anything for nine hours straight, and, quite frankly, Godfather three isn't really worth the time, minus the awesome scene with Andy Garcia shooting that thief fella in the head in front of Bridget Fonda.

For those of you inclined towards numbers, normal body temperature is 37 C, or 98.6 F. Lavigne's body temperature was 40.5C or 104.9F. That, over the course of nine hours, was more than sufficient to cook her to death. Any normal person with a modicum of health or physiological knowledge running a course on the topic would know this. Should know this. I would argue that if a person/the people running a sweat lodge didn't know this and still put people in the heat (covered in mud, plastic, and blankets), then they should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

Gabrielle Fréchette, Ginette Duclos, and Gérald Fontaine need to go to jail for negligence. To paraphrase what has been said before by people much smarter than me: if you're going to do something that has no proven medical benefit, then the risk you take should be zero or as close to it as possible. Stay away from "detox" quacks.

You Have a Degree in Balogna

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:50:00 +0000

Good friend Tony sent me a link to a site all about homeopathy. It's called Extraordinary Medicine and I thought I'd take a peek at what's happening in the world of the physically impossible. Care to join? Great.

I thought I'd look first at the section regarding the "evidence" for homeopathy and how it is actually - shock - very good. Right off the bat, however, the author lays the groundwork for ye olde special pleading:

In order to carry out scientific research, and keep up with the standards of evidence-based medicine, homeopathy has had to use a scientific model designed for conventional medicine, despite the fundamental differences between these systems.

Ok, I'll bite. What are the differences and why do they matter so much?

Evidence-based medicine uses current evidence, from scientific research, to assist in the process of making decisions in medical care. This concept leads us to consider an important question we want to leave you with: what were decisions in medical care based on, prior to the late 20th century?

Quick point: if we're also talking about Science Based Medicine, then we're also talking about prior plausibility which, when it comes to homeopathy, pretty much seals the case on the "it doesn't work" side.

Additionally, the last "important question" concerns me. Is the author suggesting somehow that prior to the late 20th century, practitioners of medicine had better insight into decision making? Hmmm...let's see.

The author then briefly discusses randomized, placebo-controlled trials and heads straight into a paragraph entitled, "The problem with RCTs for homeopathy". Here we go.

The methodology of RCTs, developed according to models that apply to conventional medicine, has several aspects that conflict with the principles of homeopathy.

Of course they do - they test what works and homeopathy doesn't. Obviously homeopaths are going to have a problem with them.

The author goes through several reasons that RCTs are not good for homeopathy (oddly, they're different from mine) beginning with "individualization".

Homeopathic methodology regards each person as a unique individual with unique characteristics. Homeopathic medicine selection that takes this individuality into consideration gives excellent results. However, in order to conform to the conditions of group treatment, for a specific ailment used in an RCT, this individualization cannot exist – despite the reality that this is one of homeopathy’s strengths.

Quick question regarding this: if everyone is a special unique snowflake that needs special unique attention to their unique specialness, why the fuck are homeopathic "medicines" sold in stores? There's no one at Wal-Mart fitting the homeopathic "remedy" in aisle 14 to customers' unique and special ailments. So which is it?

Next on the list of problems is "totality":

Conventional medicine treats symptoms—“the parts”—while homeopathy treats the whole individual—“the totality”

Oh, it's that old canard again. I don't know about you, but I can't count the number of times I've felt under the weather, gone to the doctor, and she just treated my esophagus.

The “totality” includes not only physical, mental and emotional symptoms, but also the interactions of the individual with their environment. RCTs measure quantitative parameters, making the model subject to errors when used in homeopathy.

Riiight. Doctors don't think about environmental causes for injuries, syndromes, or infections! What could possibly harm you in your environments?

The stupidity of this non-argument makes my head hurt, much like homeopathy itself. Do these people really think that MDs just blindly look at an elbow and not think about systemic infections or the possible flawed biomechanics that led to the injury? So so so dumb.

Moving on, the author gets to Efficacy trials and treatment trials. An explanation of how homeopathic substances are checked out, or proven, is given:

For a homeopathic drug proving trial, a medicinal substance with unknown, or few known, medical applications is tested in a randomized group of healthy subjects. Changes in the condition of the healthy subjects are evaluated individually, and in the group. The resulting number of common and significant symptoms is referred to as the symptom picture of the medicinal substance. This substance can be used to treat those experiencing the same symptoms. If significant improvement is obtained, the substance is included in the repertory, or materia medica, for the symptoms. Clinical results will differentiate between presence and absence of resolution of symptoms.

This might be decent if there was ANY evidence of efficacy once you find out that a certain substance that causes a certain reaction and that that substance, once diluted to a nonsensical degree would then reliably treat said reaction. I'm sure that the evidence is forthcoming....

The criticism of this system is subjectivity, because it relies on observations and reporting from the subject and the homeopaths involved in the experimentation.

No, the criticism of this system is that there is zero evidence that it is in any way effective in treating any disease whatsoever beside, possibly, dehydration.

Onwards to Blinding. This paragraph amounts to special pleading about how blinding homeopaths to each person's unique special specialness does not really allow for the caring homeopathic practitioners to make exactly the correct "medicine" or to make corrections that might help once the trial is underway. Hogwash. There is always a way to blind the practitioner and the patient.

Covering the Placebo Effect, we get this sentence:

It has been demonstrated that placebo effect resulting from homeopathic trials is not higher than that obtained from conventional drug trials.¹⁰

You might be wondering where that reference leads you. It is to the January 2010 issue of the respected journal, Homeopathy where there is an article about reviewing placebo responses to both conventional and homeopathic drugs. They're about the same, if you were wondering.

The size of the placebo effect should be the same because, surprise, it's the same effect. The difference here is that pharmaceutical drugs actually have an effect on the body. They have to in order to be able to be regulated. They also have to show that they're safe in the recommended doses. Homeopathic "drugs" are sold over-the-counter because they have no medicine in them. They are, almost by definition, nothing. It's one of the best scams ever.

Good evidence that the action of homeopathic medicines is real, and not a result of placebo effect, is the improvement of ailments suffered by babies and animals (who can’t verbally express what they feel and are not affected by psychosomatic influences) due to homeopathic treatment.

Here is a line of argument we skeptics encounter all the time. It has been answered, of course, but still, laypeople who can't be expected to know all the ins and outs of CAM argumentation give this line of reasoning, and CAMsters who know better (and some who don't) keep going back to the woo-well.

Babies and animals are just like us, because we are animals. Just because they can't speak doesn't make them magical. If they get sick, most of the time they will get better. When you give a baby or animal any treatment, you are giving it to them because you see symptoms. Chances are that if you did nothing, they would likely have gotten better anyway. When owners/parents see improvement, it is because of natural recovery and not homeopathy. A longer answer can be found at RationalWiki.

The author then gives a few citation-free examples of homeopathy being awesome, then gives a citation (from the same journal, Homeopathy) from a mastitis study in dairy cows. I found another one from a more reputable journal from the same year, conveniently discussed at the Skepvet's Blog. Go read that for why this study and its compatriot in the lesser journal are not the cat's meow, if I may.

A selection of study references follow on homeopathy's efficacy on in-vitro virus and bacteria cultures. I do not know enough to properly critique these except to say that if it were true that these were fantastic breakthroughs, we would have heard much more about it.

The last section is entitled, "Why is there so much controversy and criticism concerning homeopathy and homeopathic scientific research?" The author starts by saying:

Accepting that homeopathic medicines have a biological effect, even in potencies where dilution goes beyond Avogadro’s number—the point at which not a single molecule of the original substance is likely to remain in the solution—is not easy. It is hard for people steeped in long-established precepts of chemistry to accept that their knowledge might be wrong, or at least incomplete.

Yes, of course it is hard. It is especially hard when the laws of chemistry are essentially carved in stone now because of endless testing and re-testing. If no molecule of the active ingredient remains, then no effect from that ingredient will be seen. If you think differently, prove your case.

The author brings up both Jacque Benveniste and Luc Montagnier as martyrs for homeopathy and how the scientific establishment attacks non-conforming ideas and people. The relevant section of wiki for Benveniste is here and for Montagnier is here

The author brings up the Cuban study by Dr. Gustavo Bracho:

who did a 2.3-million-population clinical trial on homeopathic prevention of leptospirosis in Cuba, had spectacular results, yet his paper was rejected by several prominent medical journals

His paper was rejected because it was flawed, as discussed by Dr. Peter Lipson at Science Based Medicine points out.

Finally, a barrage of questions asking:

Who could be interested in attacking homeopathy now...Who, lacking real interest in seeing chronic diseases cured and cost-effective improvement of health for wealthy and poor alike, would feel menaced by homeopathy...Who would have the money and power to fund pseudo skeptics (individuals without any knowledge of homeopathy, who dare to criticize a science without an understanding of science, or the application of a ‘scientific method’ to prove/disprove their denigrating arguments against the science of homeopathy)...Who, for obvious reasons, would not be interested in reviewing any clinical evidence or “scientific” proof of homeopathy...Who could be using their power over the media to counteract the popularity of homeopathy?

I particularly like her use of "pseudo skeptics". I think most skeptics understand quite well the mechanics of homeopathy and why it is nonsense. Flailing around and repeatedly using flawed studies and arguments to back up claims that resemble fairy tales only brings mockery and ridicule your way.

The fact that studies have shown positive results for homeopathy, despite numerous obstacles and continual accommodations to fit the standard medical science model, is a testament to the validity of homeopathy—a system of medicine with a 200-year record of successful clinical results.

"Successful clinical results"? I don't think so.

More time will be spent sifting through this site and looking at its claims for homeopathy. Today, however, I am spent.

The Brooklin Spring Fair - Food Edition

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 01:01:00 +0000

This Sunday, my family and I (along with friends) went to the Brooklin Spring Fair for the afternoon. It was a bit rainy, but the kids had fun and the smells of midway food filled my nostrils like months worth of hair in a bathroom drain.

...Yes, I know that image is disgusting. It was meant to be.

If you are trying to maintain a healthy weight or, good luck, lose weight, the midway food selections leave much to be desired. Just to name off some that I remember, there were: funnel cakes, ice cream, fries, poutine, cotton candy, hamburgers, hot dogs, sausages, pizza, and deep fried everything. When I say "everything", I am talking about things on our beautiful Earth that should never see the depths of a fryer; things like Mars bars, Wunderbars, Kool-Aid, and butter. Yeah, butter.

I will confess a morbid curiosity about these items. What does deep-fried butter actually taste like? Is it a flavor all its own or could you compare it to something even more evil to the waistline? I would like to watch them deep-fry Kool-Aid just to see how it's done. Oh, wait, here's the video:There you go - "Chicken Charlie" admits to spree-killing at state fairs and his choice of weapon is the deep fryer. His victims may not die that day, but by-gum, they'll drop.

In case you were wondering about the deep-fried butter thing, here's a quick video on that horrifying subject:See, it's not that difficult to kill yourself.

I do subscribe to the idea of, "everything in moderation, including moderation", but this stuff is just off the charts. This seems like something you'd eat if astronomers told the population that a giant asteroid is going so slam into Earth in seven months and we'll all be dead anyway, so smoke 'em if you got 'em. Short of that, maybe have a cookie instead. Just not a deep-fried Oreo:

*(cross-posted to R.E.M. Professional Massage Therapy)

Iain Benson, Rebutted

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:04:00 +0000

I was reading PZ's blog and came across this post which I felt, as a Canadian, I had to address. Here's the link to the original posting by the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney and some dude named Iain Benson, who says:

Every citizen has faith and belief in something and contrary to popular opinion, there is no such thing as an unbeliever

If you look under "tired old tropes about atheism", you'll likely find this one at the top of the list, right up there with, "Where do you get your morals from?" It's tremendously annoying to have answered this point a million times over with these blockheads just never getting around to understanding.

No, we don't have faith. We do have trust. Trust is that feeling you have when you're rounding a blind corner in your car - you trust that if anyone is coming the other way, they'll be in their lane. You trust that they've been to driving school, that they know the rules of the road, and that they don't have a death-wish where you play a starring role. It has nothing to do with faith (believing in something without evidence, many times in the face of contrary evidence) and everything to do with prior knowledge. Get it the fuck straight.

Atheists are men and women of faith. Their faiths are different but they are still faiths and their beliefs still beliefs, no matter how much (Richard) Dawkins and those like him wish it was different. Humans are stuck being believers, and that's all there is to it,

Here Benson is making an equality between the words "faith" and "beliefs". I have no faith, but I along with most - if not all - atheists have many strongly held beliefs. For example, I believe that freedom of speech is of utmost importance, especially when questioning nonsense that has a position of privilege in the public sphere. I believe that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the state. These beliefs have no basis on faith because beliefs and faith are two different things. Making them equal is disingenuous and scummy and uses fatuous reasoning to attempt to make atheism and religion stand on even ground.

Religion doesn't stand on ground.

Benson then makes an argument that "secular" should be replaced with "public" when talking about non-religious topics/people. He says, "Secular was used historically to distinguish between those things that were deemed to be 'in the world' and those that were expressly and technically 'religious..." Alrighty, my Oxford English Dictionary defines "secular" as:

1. concerned with or belonging to the material world and the affairs of this world as opposed to the external or spiritual world. 2a. (of literature, music, an artist, etc.) not concerned with religious subjects b. (of education, etc.) excluding religious instruction; not promoting religious belief. 3. (of clergy) not bound by a religious or monastic rule. 4. occurring once in an age or century (the secular games) 5. lasting for or occurring over an indefinitely long time

Hm, seems to me that Benson is trying to use definition 3 exclusively instead of the variety of usages we see above. Seems to me we can use definitions 1, 2a and b instead of Benson's preference and dispense with the silliness he's promoting.

We need to start by speaking of 'public' when we are tempted to use 'secular' and we need to stop speaking of 'non-believers' when we should address those who believe other than what we do...The public sphere has a variety of competing belief systems that are religious and non religious and the only way atheism and agnosticism can be understood is as participants in the public sphere, but not as the dominant participants.

See what he's doing? He wants to make religious faith and non-religious beliefs the same. Don't be fooled, they're not. When non-religious people say that same-sex couples should have the right to get married or have the same rights as hetero couples, that's based on humanity and reason and logic. When religious people say that same-sex couples should not have the same rights, that is based on bronze-age nonsense and rules that come from a book they think was dictated by a magical sky-daddy. See the difference?

Likewise religious institutions have as much right as non-religious institutions. Everyone has a belief system of some sort and those who draw on religious sources should not be put at a disadvantage

Oh, yes. Yes, they should. See, where you draw your beliefs from is very important. Sure, everyone has a set of beliefs, but if Person A believes that safe sex education and distribution of condoms is important for junior high school and high school students to curb teen pregnancy and STI rates; that belief is based on logic, statistics, and reason. If Person B believes that condoms cause pregnancy, that sex education is "icky" and not appropriate for students, and that abstinence-only is the way to go, that belief is based on personal prejudices and ignores the evidence (see page 12 specifically).

Everyone is free to believe whatever the hell they want, provided those beliefs do not harm anyone else - that is what a free society means. That said, if you believe nonsense, in a free society you will be called upon occasionally to defend that nonsense or be cast aside in the marketplace of ideas. Religion is being cast aside and the people who believe are not too happy about that.

Today's struggle is not between belief and unbelief, nor between those with faith and those who do not recognise faith, but rather a set of public struggles for recognition and fair treatment between competing belief systems

Religion has had a long, long time of being fairly recognized as a belief system and it has failed. With the explosion of information, young people are fact-checking their authority figures and the leaders of religions are looking pretty squirmy under the microscope while scientific inquiry comes out squeaky clean. You can learn science, you can put the time in and figure out new approaches, and you can realize that science is honest in its appraisal of itself (i.e. "We know we don't know everything, and the areas of darkness are the greatest areas for research").

Finally, under a picture of Christopher Hitchens, there is a caption that reads:

the late Christopher Hitchens did not recognise himself as a believer and follower of the dogma of aethism

Once again, the OED defines "dogma" as: noun - 1. a belief or set of beliefs held by an authority or group, which others are expected to accept without argument. 2 an arrogant declaration of opinion. [Latin from Greek dogma -matos opinion, from dokeo seem] Hm. Odd, isn't it? There are NO beliefs within a group of atheists that are "accepted without argument". In fact, I would argue that arguing is the quality most atheists share, especially when the belief comes from an "authority". Stating that Christopher Hitchens accepted the "dogma of atheism" is absurd to the point where I would question if Benson ever read Hitchens' books & essays or ever saw the man debate. It's embarrassing.

Iain Benson, you do not know of what you speak.

Growing in Grace Under Fire

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Thu, 03 May 2012 12:27:00 +0000

There's a cult in Toronto who says that June 30 is the END OF THE WORLD! OMG! Surprisingly, it's not related to Harold Camping and his band of happy doomsayers, it's some weirdo named Jose de Luis de Jesus. Guess who he and his followers think he's the second coming of? Yeah, it's Jesus.

They say that once June 30th comes around, all the unbelievers will be destroyed and then the cult followers will gain special powers like flight, walking through walls, and running without getting tired. Although, why you'd ever run when you can fly is beyond me. Granted, logical thought is not now, nor has it ever been a strong suit for religious nutbags.

These melonheads think they're going to live through the End Times so the old, "sign all your shit over to me" line should work on them. "In the event that the Apocalypse does not occur on June 30th, 2012, all your worldly belongings, possessions, investments, and assets will become the property of (insert rational member of society)". Or maybe de Jesus can sign all his crap over to his ex-wife, who he has apparently already paid $144,000 - presumably cult "donations".

What was that that P.T. Barnum said....?

Tragedy, Defined

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Wed, 02 May 2012 16:18:00 +0000

A little girl is born to a crack addict. She gives the baby up for adoption. The baby is taken in by another crack addict who has already lost two children to Children's Aid Services (CAS) and who has a "reformed" crack addict boyfriend. They neglect the little girl and beat her, destroying her inside and out until they finally beat her to death at age seven. When police investigate, they find a note where the little girl had written, 62 times, "I’ am A awful girl that’s why know one wants me."

It makes me cry to even write that. Still think there's a god out there somewhere?

BodyTalk? More Like Stupid Mind Magic

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:16:00 +0000

I have gotten several emails about this (apparently) new form of bodywork. The creator is trying to drum up business and as such, is spamming massage therapists with her ideas. I'm going to show you what she sent me and we'll talk a quick walk-through of her claims.

Are You Getting The Most Out Of Your Treatment Sessions? Have You Thought of Working Smarter Not Harder?

This is a common first line to grab the attention of bodyworkers because we have a physical profession with lots of dropoffs due to tendonitis in the thumb/wrist, etc... and lots of minor nagging injuries because of postural irregularities while we massage. If you can "work smarter", then your career might last longer - usually, however, working "smarter" entails working with woo.

The next section of her email starts with, "Did You Know That...", which is almost always followed by some claims of such extravagance that you'd think jewels would fall out of your anus. Here are some of her "Did you knows":

The key element to maintaining health in the body is the re-establishment of communication between all systems and parts of the body

Um, last I checked, your body is in constant communication with all of its parts. If it's not, you have serious problems. This little factoid of hers makes no sense.

The body has the ability to synchronize its activities, heal, and adapt to the stresses of life. Unless it is on overwhelm

Obviously the body has the ability to heal and adapt. We'd have a pretty short and shitty life if it couldn't adapt and heal non-fatal injuries. I don't know what the hell she means when she suggests that your body can be, "on overwhelm". Maybe that's just when you hang out at Chucky Cheese on a weekend afternoon.

The most important consideration in the healing process is the sequence in which the body heals its systems

Well, sure. I mean, if the inflammation sequence isn't performed in the right order, it won't work. What she seems to be implying here is that we have some conscious control over this sequence, which is silly. Some of my critics may see it fit to ask me why it is silly, but I would suggest some reading on the topic (from a reputable scientific source) and then come back.

One of the main factors that slows down the healing process is the superimpostion of the bias and agenda of the practitioner.

Ok, this one is pure bullshit. She is saying that I have spooky powers to keep people from getting better because I can use massage-magic to interrupt my clients' bodily processes. Stupid nonsense.

She then asks, "What if you knew of an integrative healthcare system that could tell you what is wrong with the body, what needs to be treated, and in what order?" Oh whatever could that system be? Who is the genius who came up with this amazing way of treating poor clients who know not of mind-magic?

Well the system is called "BodyTalk" and the lady is offering a four-day "BodyTalk fundamentals" course that covers these topics:

•BodyTalk theory and exploration tools
•Essential General Balance Techniques including Balancing the Brain, addressing the Stress Threshold, Hydration levels, Releasing Scars and Adhesions, Interference
•Balancing Communication within the Organs, Endocrines and Body Parts
•Supporting the Immune System (microbes, allergies, toxins and intolerances)
•Addressing stored active memories, Belief Systems and Fears/Phobias
•Introduction to Energy Anatomy and Balancing of the Chakras and Meridians
•Balancing Environmental Factors that affect the BodyMind Complex
•Genetic Repair at the Cellular Level
•A Simple but powerful technique to stimulate the Lymphatic System
•Circulation of Blood, Nerve and Lymph
•Structural Balance and Integrity

The emphasis there is mine. I had to highlight those parts because they're so dumb that I wanted to make sure they stood out - more than the dumbness already makes them. Oh, and here's another red-flag when dealing with quack nonsense:

The BodyTalk system can be learned easily by individuals with or without a background in healthcare.

Yeah, who needs any background in healthcare when you can use magic! What do you need books and science for when you can just intuit what to do and change things (like the brain or endocrine function) that are really hard to quantify?

It's the "Make Shit Up" school of healthcare!

The lady (Tracey) says that you can, "Learn to go beyond technique alone and to think outside the box with an open mind." Yes, exhibit A is your brain on the sidewalk, all opened.

I love this one. She says:

Regular use of objective measurement before and after BodyTalk sessions (as taught in the BodyTalk Orthopedic Evaluation class) demonstrates the effectiveness of the Module 1 & 2 techniques in releasing physical, energetic, emotional, environmental, and consciousness issues held in the BodyMind.

Riiiight. She teaches you the technique, she teaches you the method to measure its efficacy, then you know it works. For some reason, the phrase "closed loop" is coming to mind.

Finally, check out how she signs her name at the end of her email: Tracey Worrall AdvCBP, ParBP, CBI, BAT, BA

Man, that's a lot of letters after her name. What do they all mean? Well, the first one is "Advanced Certified BodyTalk Practitioner"; the second is "Parama BodyTalk Practitioner", whatever the hell that is; CBI stands for "Certified BodyTalk Instructor"; BAT is "BodyTalk Access Trainer; and finally BA is the commonly know Bachelor of Arts. So out of five qualifications, she made up four of them. That's not a good average.

Hell, I could put BMF, UCG, SoW, SHD(TK) and FC after my name, but "Bad MotherFucker", "Universally Cool Guy", "Stimulator of Women", "Stay at Home Dad (Two Kids)", and "Former Cheerleader" don't really hold much weight in the employment world. Actually, come to think of it, they hold as much weight as what Tracey Worrall puts after her name. Maybe I'll try that out on my new letterhead....

No, He Does Not Need A Stupid Exorcism

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:25:00 +0000

CBC is reporting that an exorcist was being sought for a potential case of demonic possession. You know, I really wish that news anchors could have a "facepalm" gesture for stories like this. Let's follow the timeline:

According to church officials, a priest was called to a Saskatoon home by a woman who said her uncle showed signs of being possessed by the devil.

So we have established that the niece is a religious person who actually believes that some guy in a dress with no counseling training might be able to help her emotionally disturbed uncle. Alrighty.

At the home, the priest encountered a shirtless middle-aged man, slouched on a couch and holding his head in his hands.

So the priest showed up to Scarborough(or insert local edge-of-town, hicksville, big-hair, stripmall township of which people make fun)! Ba dum dum!

The man had used a sharp instrument to carve the word Hell on his chest.

Ok, so now we're into self-abusive, crazy behavior that betrays the individual's need for professional counseling. He's crying out for help and all he gets is a deluded priest with a cross who is going to reinforce the delusions and "treat" them by blessing him. Awesome. I'm invested in this story; what happens next?

When the priest entered the room, the man spoke in the third person, saying "He belongs to me. Get out of here," using a strange voice.

It's weird that something basically straight out of the movie, The Exorcist is actually being seen in a "possessed" person, isn't it? No? It's not? Oh, I stand corrected.

The priest told CBC News that he had never seen anything like this and was concerned enough to call police, for safety reasons.

Pat on the back due to the priest here as he at least had the common sense to call the police. It's a small pat, but hey, it's a pat nonetheless.

He said he then blessed the man, saying he belonged to the good side, to Jesus. With that, the man's voice returned to normal for a short time...The unusual voice returned when police arrived, and the priest continued to bless the man until he resumed a more normal composure.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, right? The only thing the priest could do was bless the guy. What else was there? Checkers? The man losing his shit is obviously a religious fella, so perhaps reassuring him that Jesus had him on the "cool list" was a positive move, but it still seems like that is playing into the delusions, doesn't it? It's like a person who says they've been abducted by UFOs joining a "support group" of others who have been "likewise abducted" so they can share their stories and spiral downward into a world of fantasy and craziness. Watch this clip from Penn & Teller's Bullshit - the CRAZY starts at 54 seconds, "support" group at 6 min, 25 secs:

Bishop Don Bolen explained that the ritual of exorcism is a very structured exercise. He said it was not clear if the Saskatoon man was possessed or experiencing a mental breakdown.

As Samuel L. Jackson said in Pulp Fiction, "Oh, well allow me to retort!" He was having a mental breakdown. I can say this with confidence because being "possessed" isn't fucking real. Pretty straightforward, really.

Did the cat drink the milk from the saucer on the floor, or was it the Blue Milk Fairy who comes through the glass in the kitchen window and slurp it up with her magic lucite straw? Hmmm...it's a mystery, I guess we'll never know!

"I would think there are perhaps more stories about exorcisms in Hollywood than there are on the ground," Bolen said. "But the Catholic Church teaches that there is a force of darkness, and that God is stronger than that darkness."

You'd guess that there are more in Hollywood? Holy hell, this Bolen fella needs a reality check, stat.

Church leaders in Saskatoon have been considering whether Saskatoon needs a trained exorcist.

Let me save the people of Saskatoon a little bit of their hard-earned money: NO! You do not need a goddamn exorcist. That's like asking if the city of Saskatoon needs a sabre-tooth tiger wrangler. For fuck's sake....

Anglican priest Colin Clay, who has worked with Bisztyo (a Catholic priest with "exorcism training" who retired), told CBC News the topic of exorcism touches on questions that go back centuries.

The issues revolve around the nature of evil and how to respond to people who claim they have the devil in them.

Again, I'll give a succinct answer: If someone claims to have the "devil in them", you get them professional counseling. You don't bring them to some guy who thinks there's an invisible all-loving man in the sky and another freak living in the core of the Earth who makes you bad. Sometimes treating "fire with fire" is a really bad idea.

"The churches have to respond," Clay said. "And they'll either do it by saying — some churches will say — 'Well that's the devil, and the devil is at work in the world and we've got to deal with it,' or the churches will say, 'Well there's certainly evil in the world, whether there's an actual Satan or devil, there's certainly evil in the world, and it has a terrible effect on people's lives,' and so we've got to respond to it."

*Sigh* Yes, there's evil; no, there's no devil. The way you deal with evil is you either kill it (the person), you throw their ass in jail, or you get them professional counseling (are you seeing a theme here yet, religious folks?). At no point in the response-tree of dealing with evil or crazy are priests involved. At all. Ever. You serve no purpose other than the most basic of social tasks (marriages for people who believe in your nonsense, funerals for people who believe in your nonsense, weekly talks to people who believe in your nonsense). Please, leave the serious tasks to people who have put in the time to actually know what the fuck it is they're doing.

"I take evil very, very seriously," Clay said. "I take the effect that it has on people very seriously, but I don't think that there's any quick fix. The word exorcism worries me a little bit, because it's been given a Hollywood sort of flavour to it, and it's not as simple as that. You don't just say you've got the devil, I'm going to drive it out."

No, YOU don't do anything. YOU just stick to your basics and leave the mental breakdowns and chest carvings to the professionals, please. Clay is right that there are no quick fixes, but no part of that long journey to recovery involves dealing with some quack in a dress talking about their Sky-Daddy who's going to beat up the other bad Daddy-Down-There.

Religious People Being All "Religious"

seal_35@hotmail.com (BHM) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:58:00 +0000

A small public school district in Ontario has decided to ban the distribution of Gideon bibles. Apparently, the bibles have been made available to grade 5 students for decades now (flying under the radar, I assume) in quite a few school boards, most of which have already banned the practice.

What do you think happened when the ban was proposed? Hmm...Perhaps the religioius people:

unleashed a torrent of threatening calls and hateful emails directed at trustees...Some messages...express racist sentiment and question trustees’ patriotism

Well keep the balloons in your pocket when you call 911 because I'm going to die of not-surprise.

It seems that this is what usually happens when a group has a special privilege that gets taken away to make everything more fair. The group (in this case, Christian religious people) feels like it is giving up ground it has won, which it is. But they don't see that by giving up said ground, everyone is now equal. I'm sure that sentiment would snap into focus pretty quickly if the Nation of Islam was to hand out free copies of the Koran to all the grade 5 students, or if a secular group handed out copies of The Demon Haunted World (not that they're equal).

To be fair, the people who have been acting crazy (at least one who made a death threat) are in the minority, as per usual. Hopefully the crazies won't sway public opinion and they'll fade into the woodwork where they belong soon enough.