Author: Ophelia Benson

  • We never

    One or two points about that first Observer article, because that blame-the-bloggers not-pology is so annoying.

    One, Stephen Pritchard wrote yesterday, truculently,

    that concern should have been in the article, but because it was absent doesn’t mean that the paper was promoting the treatment, as some have suggested (“pimping” it, as one science writer so crudely tweeted).

    No, the fact that the concern was absent doesn’t mean that the paper was promoting the treatment, but all the same, the paper (via the article) was to some extent promoting the treatment. Bainbridge called it “a pioneering treatment” when it’s a trial rather than a treatment, and “pioneering” makes it sound new and potentially promising as opposed to more than 30 years old and so far not a success. Bainbridge made it sound more promising than it is. How is that not promoting the treatment?

    And the paper (via the article) was soliciting donations. At the end of the article it says “HOW YOU CAN HELP,” and gives a url at which you can donate.

    So it wasn’t just a human-interest story. It was also a how-you-can-help story that solicited funds, with no hint that the ultimate recipient of the funds might not be reliable – so it really was like a story about the royal family of Nigeria needing help with a transfer of funds.

  • A sustained attack on the paper

    The Observer has responded to bloggers’ responses to its uncritical story about a fundraising campaign to send a child to the Burzynski clinic. Stephen Pritchard writes:

    Yet what was intended as a gripping, human-interest story quickly drew a sustained attack on the paper for apparently offering unquestioning support for a highly controversial cancer treatment, known at antineoplaston therapy.

    That seems like an unnervingly irresponsible way to look at the matter. However gripping a human-interest story may be, surely it’s irresponsible (at least) to report a campaign to enable a very expensive very dubious “treatment” as if it were just a gripping story.

    Pritchard then explains that desperate parents are desperate, and then rebukes critics for not getting that.

    And this is the point that is being lost in the vitriol that is flying around the internet. Undoubtedly, the Observer was wrong not to have included criticism of the treatment. A simple check with Cancer Research UK would have revealed the depth of concern about it and, no question, that concern should have been in the article, but because it was absent doesn’t mean that the paper was promoting the treatment, as some have suggested (“pimping” it, as one science writer so crudely tweeted).

    Oh brilliant; great job of accepting responsibility. “Wull we didn’t promote it.” Really? By telling a gripping human-interest story about it? That’s a very Pontius Pilate sort of view of media influence.

    I’ll leave the last word to the deputy editor. “We had no intention of endorsing or otherwise the treatment that the Bainbridge family have chosen for Billie. The focus of the article was the extraordinary campaign to raise money for the course of action that the family, after careful consideration of the benefits and risks, had decided to pursue. It is a story of courage and generosity involving thousands of people. Of course, it is entirely legitimate to raise issues about the Burzynski clinic as a number of readers have done, and we should have done more to explain the controversy that it has provoked. But some participants in the debate have combined aggression, sanctimony and a disregard for the facts in a way which has predictably caused much distress to the Bainbridge family.”

    I feel like doing a Basil Fawlty – “Oh I see, it’s my fault is it.” “”Oh I see, it’s the bloggers’ fault is it.” Pointing out the dubiousness of a dubious “treatment” which is really a trial which has been in progress since 1977, with no success so far – that’s aggression and sanctimony, is it.

  • Quackometer: the Observer’s response is a disgrace

    The response attempts to justify its coverage and blames bloggers for “aggression, sanctimony and a disregard for the facts.”

  • Dinosaur quiverfull

    Wow.

    Dinosaur picture: a nest full of baby dinosaur fossils

     What an amazing find. That’s fifteen juvenile dinosaurs in one nest. They’re thought to be about a year old. Fifteen juveniles in one nest! I was already puzzling about that before I read the text – which confirms that it’s puzzling.

    Scientists  once believed that dinosaurs generally followed a crocodile-like model  of child care—they would lay their eggs and leave their nests for good.  This idea was replaced by the view that dinosaurs raised their  young for a time after hatching, the way many birds do.

    Now,  Fastovsky explained, people understand that the ancient reptiles had  parenting styles unlike those of any animals alive today.

    Fifteen  babies, as seen in the newfound fossil nest, is an unusually large  number of offspring for any animal to nurture at once, Fastovsky said.  Modern animals tend to have a few young, in which they invest heavily,  like humans, or they have a “zillion babies” and show no parental care,  like mosquitoes.

    “So these [dinosaurs] seem to be something else.”

    Kind of worst of both worlds – lots of kids, intensively raised. But how fascinating.

    How did they all die at once? I was thinking maybe a blast of toxic gas from somewhere, such as a volcano. But –

    As seen above, all of the young Protoceratops in the newfound nest are facing the same direction, giving scientists a clue to how they died.

    “Our  scenario is that these things were pointed away from the wind as it was  blowing during a sand storm, and then they were catastrophically buried  by an encroaching dune,” Fastovsky said.

    “I  think in this particular case, it really was dramatic—this fossil  really records the last, bug-eyed, terrified minutes of their little  lives.”

    Like Herculaneum.

    I love amazing finds.

     

     

  • Nest full of dinosaur babies found in Mongolia

    Unlike other dinosaur nests found with fossil eggs, the babies in this nest appear to have been about a year old when they died. Parental care!

  • Observer complains of “vitriol” over Burzynski article

    Also “aggression, sanctimony and a disregard for the facts.”

  • Islamists win 65% of votes in Egypt

    The MB’s Freedom and Justice Party, about 40%, and the Salafist Nour Party, about 25%.

  • More whacked-out causation

    They seem to have a shaky grasp on what causes what, in Saudi Arabia.

    A report in Saudi Arabia has warned that if Saudi women were given the right to drive, it would spell the end of virginity in the country.

    See? That’s bizarre. If Saudi women drove, babies would be born non-virgins? How? How would that work?

    Though there is no formal ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia, if they get behind the wheel, they can be arrested.

    That too is bizarre. If there’s no actual law against women driving, what can they be arrested for?

    As part of his careful reform process, King Abdullah has allowed suggestions to surface that the ban might be reviewed.

    This has angered the conservative religious elite – a key power base for any
    Saudi ruler.

    Now, one of their number – well-known academic Kamal Subhi – has presented a new report to the country’s legislative assembly, the Shura.

    The aim was to get it to drop plans to reconsider the ban.

    The report contains graphic warnings that letting women drive would increase prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce.

    …………..Homosexuality? How?

    Anyway –  well-known academic Kamal Subhi seems to have a ludicrous idea of sensible risk-avoidance. Letting anyone do anything would increase all sorts of things, but it’s not worth locking everyone up in a small room for life to avoid all those things.

    On the other hand, if the Saudi bosses do decide women can drive, I hope they urge them to reconsider the policy of wearing a blanket over their heads too.

    Saudi women get in the back seat of a car

    You don’t want those women driving a car, for sure.

  • UK police reveal numbers for “honour” violence

    Ikwro director Diana Nammi said families often tried to deny the existence of honour
    attacks and those who carried them out were “very much respected”.

  • What’s the big idea?

    Just for the sake of argument, or exploration, let’s take seriously this claim that atheism is a little idea and god is a big one.

    Atheism has become a very little idea, an idea that has to be shouted to seem important.  And that is a shame, because God was a big idea, and the rejection of the existence of God was also a big idea, once upon a time.

    Was god a big idea?

    Perhaps I’m not taking it seriously after all, because I can’t honestly see that it was.

    Really. I can’t. It seems to me that god was and is a very little idea, and a very boring one (which shows how little it was and is). It has no moving parts to think about. It has no detail to think about. It’s like a smooth mound of ice – only less interesting because not organic.

    I can’t think of anything that is about god that’s at all interesting – any book or description or analysis, I mean. That’s why movies like Oh God! and Dogma show god as a person, I should think – to make it interesting enough for people to watch.

    God is almost never a character in literature, and when it is it’s boring. The only way to make it not boring is to make it like a human – which just shows how boring it is as itself. God is nowhere near as interesting as Hamlet or Dorothea Brooke or Abraham Lincoln or Emily Bronte.

    Why not? Because it’s not a big idea, it’s a little idea – it’s simple. It’s just omni-everything…which is as boring as it gets.

    This is one reason Jesus is such a big deal, by the way; ditto Mo. They’re there for the interest. Things happen to them. What can happen to god?

    All this is in human terms, obviously, but then that’s what we’re talking about. We don’t have access to other terms.

    Humans want to go somewhere. That’s built in. We want some kind of improvement. There are a million versions of improvement, just as there are a million versions of happiness, but we pretty much all want it in some form; it’s our engine. Poor god can’t want that, because it’s already perfect. What could be more boring? Big is not the same as interesting, to be sure, but I think the littleness is the source of the lack of interestingness. It’s a little idea because it’s just a formula of words, and it’s one that doesn’t go anywhere. God is perfect; end of story.

    One orthodox version of heaven is an eternity of gazing on god, in bliss. That’s always sounded like torture to me.

    What am I missing?

  • Paper wasps have facial recognition

    This is the first time that scientists have discovered this humanlike ability in an insect.

  • Kenan Malik on outrage

    Muslims, Christians, atheists, liberals, conservatives –  for every group outrage has become an expression of self-definition.

  • Saudi academic claims that cars rape women

    A report in Saudi Arabia has warned that if Saudi women were given the right to drive, it would spell the end of virginity in the country.

  • Gay Marriage and African Politics

    I am writing to condemn in no uncertain terms the recent passage by the Senate of the the anti gay marriage bill. The passage of this bill once again demonstrates how disconnected Nigerian politicians and lawmakers are from the realities of the 21st century. It has confirmed that our lawmakers indeed prefer to fiddle while our social, political and economic house, called Nigeria, burns. Otherwise how does one explain the relevance of this bill at a time when Nigeria has become almost a failed state due to terrorist attacks, sectarian violence, corruption, poverty, diseases, abuse of office, tribalism and nepotism, misguided politics and mistaken sense of statecraft?

    The passage of this bill has shown clearly how misplaced our priorities are, or better, how misplaced the priorities of those who claim to lead this country are. Our Senators should answer this question clearly: How does an anti gay marriage bill contribute to the greatest good of the greatest number of Nigerians?

    Does this bill put food on their table or money in their pocket? The answer is: No. Does it provide them jobs? No. Does it enhance their much needed security and peaceful coexistence? No. Does it improve the standard of education in the country? No. Does it make Nigerian parents more responsible in terms of child support, upbringing and other family responsiblities? No. Does it improve the love and harmony in homes and communities across the country? No. Will this bill improve trust in marriages and relationaships in Nigeria? No. Will it in any way strengthen the much talked-about marriage institution or family values? No. Can the Senators tell me the practical, political, moral relevance of this bill, except to legislate and institutionalize hatred and persecution of minorities, gay cleansing, moral hypocrisy and inquisition?

    The true test of a democracy is not how it panders to the so called will (real or imagined) of the majority but how it treats and respects its minority. The test of a society’s humanity is how it protects and defends vulnerable members of the population.

    And with this bill, has the Nigerian democracy and society failed this test? The answer is an unequivocal ‘Yes’.

    This anti gay marriage bill is a clear indictment of our sense of common humanity and our commmitment to human rights principles as a people and as a nation. The state cannot legislate when it comes to sexual relationships among consenting adults. The politicians and lawmakers cannot dictate for adults whom to relate with. Lawmakers have no business in the bedroom of adults.

    For me this anti gay marriage bill is another pointer to where we have chosen to go as a nation – backward. Today the global trend is to unban, not to ban gay marriage.

    Yes, the Senate vote to ban gay marriage is another indication of how our politicians have refused to confront our real challenges and to tackle and address our real, urgent and pressing problems as a nation and as a people. Instead our lawmakers prefer to pursue shadows and to engage in wasteful debates and counter-productive legislation. Yes, I want to reiterate that the whole idea of debating and passing a bill against gay marriage which has been going on since 2006 is a waste of our limited legislative resources, a huge distraction from more pressing issues, and a mark of our warped sense of politics and lawmaking. In fact it is an abuse of Nigeria’s legislative space. The obsession with homophobia among our lawmakers is unwarranted and uncalled for. It is rather an indication of political futility and emptiness, lack of vision, and failure to focus politically expedient programs for nation building and good governance.

    I still want to know from our Senators and all those clamouring for an anti gay marriage legislation the rationale behind such a bill in a country where homsexuality is a crime. Can any gay marriage act or pact legally stand in a situation where homosexuality is illegal? The answer is NO. So why do our Senators think we need an anti gay marriage legislation at this time?. Today as we all know most countries are striving to make their laws compatible, not in conflict, with human rights. They are either reviewing, amending or repealing laws like those against homosexuality and blasphemy and for the death penalty, which are not in line with human rights, or introducing new laws that are in accordance with human rights.

    And instead of moving forward with these countries and working towards repealing obnoxious laws, our politicians and lawmakers prefer to move backward by tightening the laws against homosexuality on the basis of religious and fanatical sentiments, and an ill-defined sense of African culture and tradition. Culture is not static. Culture is diverse and dynamic. There were acts, norms and habits deemed culturally unacceptable centuries ago but which are commonplace cultural practices today. Those who are saying that respecting people with homosexual orientation is unAfrican are really misrepresenting the African culture. If there is anything history tells us it is that Africans have been traditionally tolerant of people with same-sexual orientation prior to the introduction of criminal provisions based on the alien religions of Christianity and Islam. African politicians and lawmakers should make African traditions compatible with human rights. Unfortunately, the anti gay marriage bill entrenches and legalizes homophobia not human rights.

    Meanwhile, there has been some vague reference to the recent threat by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron who, at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth, moved to cut add cut to countries that do not reform legislations banning homosexuality. Some have interpreted the statement as an attempt by the UK to impose its values on the rest of the world. I don’t think this is the case. Britain is a democratic country where the people’s voices and opinions matter.

    I believe that the so-called threat was a reflection of the voices and wishes of the British people. Britian has decriminalized homosexuality and made significant progress in the protection of the rights of gay people. The British government is simply saying that they cannot be protecting the rights of homosexual persons and also be providing aid or financial assistance to countries where the same people, who are protected under British law, are persecuted or treated as criminals. No country, even Nigeria, would agree to provide aid or assistance to countries where black people are treated as criminals or thrown into jail because of the colour of their skin. How do we then expect Britain to extend aid to countries that persecute and legislate against individuals based on their sexual orientation? But this is a simple logic which the homophobia of many African politicians and lawmakers cannot allow them to understand or appreciate.

  • The milk of human kindness

    And then there’s Gulnare Freewill Baptist church, which told a parishioner – ever so politely, you understand – that her fiancé couldn’t come to the church again, on account of how he’s not a white person. Perfectly understandable. It’s because they (church members who voted on “the issue”) want to promote greater unity among the church body and the community. Obviously you can’t do that if there’s a not-white person at the church when all the other persons there are white. That would promote lesser unity. Everybody would look around uneasily and kind of split apart.

    Melvin Thompson, former pastor of Gulnare Freewill Baptist church, proposed the ban after Stella Harville brought her fiance, Ticha Chikuni, to services in June. Harville, who goes by the name Suzie, played the piano while Chikuni sang.

    Interracial couple Stella Harville and  Ticha Chikuni banned by Kentucky church

    Before stepping down as pastor in August, Thompson told Harville that her fiance could not sing at the church again. Harville is white and Chikuni, a native of Zimbabwe, is black.

    Last Sunday, church members voted 9-6 in favor of Thompson’s proposed ban. Others attending the church business meeting declined to take a stand on the issue.

    “That the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church does not condone interracial marriage,” the resolution states, according to WKYT.

    “Parties of such marriages will not be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services and other church functions, with the exception being funerals. All are welcome to our public worship services. This recommendation is not intended to judge the salvation of anyone, but is intended to promote greater unity among the church body and the community we serve.”

    God is love.

  • Oh yes, go right ahead

    Memri reports a fatwa that says it’s fine for mujahideen to kidnap “the infidels’ women” and rape them, because once they’ve been kidnapped the infidel men don’t own them any more.

    The inquiry in response to which Al-Athari issued the fatwa reads as
    follows:[1] “Is it permissible for mujahideen in jihad fronts
    to kidnap the infidels’ women and hold them as their captives? What is the
    ruling regarding a captive in our times? How should they be divided [among the mujahideen]? Is it permissible to imprison [an infidel woman who has been taken captive] in an infidel land, or must she be brought to Dar Al-Islam[the abode of Islam]? How much time must one wait before having sexual intercourse with her, regarding both one who is a virgin and one who is not?”

    Notice the assumptions. Notice first the assumption that women are property – “the infidels’ women”; and notice second that they are things, which can be carted around, divided, taken, brought, and generally handled as one might handle a desk or a lawnmower – heavy but manageable; and notice third that the whole point of them is to fuck. Is it permissible for mujahideen to grab other men’s women and bring them back in order to fuck them? That is the question.

    Al-Athari replies: “There is no doubt that taking the women of the combatant infidels captive – whether they are from AhlAl-Kitab [i.e.,
    Christians or Jews] or pagans – is permitted according to the shari’a…

    And that’s all that counts. The holy book of roolz says it’s permitted, so of course there’s no need to think about it, to evaluate it, to try to empathize with the women and judge whether or not it’s really an ok decent humane thing to do. There’s no need to try to have the imagination and compassion and sympathy to realize that kidnapping and raping people is 1) shitty 2) a war crime (because of 1). Just ask an imam and that’s the end of it.

    In his discussion of “concrete proofs,” Al-Athari quotes Al-Qurtubi, who says: “Most scholars, including Malik [ibn Anas], Al-Shafi’i, Abu Hanifa, [2] and others, thought that taking [infidel women] captive removes the protection [they previously enjoyed], and permits whoever is holding them to have sexual intercourse with them.” Al-Athari also quotes another scholar whose interpretation of Al-Qurtubi’s ruling says that the latter uses the word “protection” to refer to married women, who are forbidden to men other than their husbands. That is, when these women are taken captive, their marriage contracts with their infidel husbands become void, and they become permissible to their captors. Al-Athari adds that the amount of time a captor must wait until having sexual intercourse with a captive infidel woman depends on her condition: if she is pregnant, he must wait until after she gives birth; if she is menstruating, he must wait until after her period is over; and if she is young and has not yet begun menstruating, he must wait a month from her capture.

    That last is a nice touch. If she’s seven and hasn’t reached puberty, the guy who kidnapped her has to wait a month before raping her.

     

  • Fatwa says mujahideen can kidnap and rape “infidel” women

    It’s perfectly all right, because once they’re kidnapped, the infidel men don’t own them any more.

  • Headline: “Fish could protect against Alzheimer’s”

    Body: “this research did not account for lifestyle factors such as other foods or exercise which could also have had an effect.”

  • Robert Talisse talks to Robert Audi

    In Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State, Audi proposes a novel and forceful account of the proper role of religious conviction in democratic politics.

  • NSS to Court: town council prayers are unlawful

    The society is acting on behalf of atheist councillor Clive Bone, who had tried to have the prayers stopped.