No sense of humour at all

Some wag in the British government made a half-joking tentative itinerary for the Pope’s visit to England…and it got spread around and made some stuffed shirts very angry.

The Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Nottingham, was astonished and angered by the proposals.

He said: “This is appalling. You don’t invite someone to your country and then disrespect them in this way.

“It’s outlandish and outrageous to assume that any of the ideas are in any way suitable for the Pope.”

i-88319a73204a2a82f70e39e559c6d30e-popehat.jpeg

The fellow who made the list has been chastised and transferred. Representatives of the government have crawled to the Vatican to apologize and beg forgiveness. It must have been a tremendous lampoon; I imagined it would propose all kinds of degrading behaviors, like “flounce around in a dress” (oh, hey, I think he’s going to do that one) or “wear a funny hat” (dang, another gimme) or “drink until swozzled” or maybe even “lose virginity to a mature and consenting woman”. You know, the kind of thing a joker like me might suggest.

But no. Here’s the list of proposals.

  • Launch of ‘Benedict’ condoms
  • Review of Vatican attitude on condom use
  • Bless a civil partnership
  • Reversal of policy on women bishops/ordain woman
  • Open an abortion ward
  • Speech on equality
  • Statemen on views over adoption (change of stance)
  • Training course for all bishops on child abuse allegations
  • Harder line on child abuse—announce sacking of dodgy bishops
  • Vatican sponsorship for network of AIDS clinics
  • Meet young unemployed people
  • Apologize for… …
  • Canonise/pseudo canonise a group
  • Announce whistle blowing system for child abuse cases
  • Go to job centre
  • Debate on abortion
  • All catholic schools should be free entry to all
  • Speech on democracy
  • Vatican and C of E funded committee on dialogue
  • Launch helpline for abused children

Hang on…those aren’t half bad. It’s not even a very funny list. They all propose confronting the Pope with the actual reality of his policies, or with the real problems that people in the country are facing. The list is clearly informed by opposition to the follies of Catholicism, but how should one greet the head of a bizarre but influential cult that continues to promote bad ideas and protect criminals? With simpering deference? Apparently, that’s what the appalled members of the government and various other institutions think. How dare some rascal in the ranks actually propose to make the Pope face facts or defend his policies?

Personally, I’d love to see the Pope in a debate on abortion, where he would actually have to address difficult questions and defend his own ideas. Best idea yet would be a debate on various controversial topics, like birth control, abortion, the role of women in the church, and homosexuality…with the Pope on one side, and Stephen Fry on the other. It could be perfectly respectful, and it would be hilarious.

Alternatively, if we just want to see the Pope flensed and the wounds rubbed with salt and sulfur, they could bring in Christopher Hitchens as the opponent. Either way, you know that the Pope would be demolished by bringing in any confrontation that didn’t simply bow obsequiously to his antique office.

National Day of Prayer needs more abolishin’

The Reverend Barry Lynn was on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, and I am unsurprised that Kelly was astonishingly awful: talking over Lynn, pushing lies, etc. There are multiple face-palm moments here: Kelly telling a reverend that he “wants god out of everything,” for instance, or when Lynn points out that the national day of prayer is not neutral on religion, but promotes it, she offers a ‘secular’ alternative: instead of praying, let people meditate and acknowledge the role that god has played in the founding of this country and its laws.

Lynn is good, though, and shows how to gracefully cope with an interview with a moron.

Lynn has an excellent defense of the decision that the national day of prayer is unconstitutional (even if it is on the odious HuffPo), where he makes the case that the NDP has always been a sectarian and blatantly religious event, of exactly the kind that the government is forbidden from endorsing.

Man, if more Christians were like Barry Lynn (or like Sam Venable, for another example), those danged New Atheists would have very little to rail against, and we’d all kind of cool down and go take a nap, or something.

Unfortunately, they aren’t like that, and right now we have the Department of Justice gearing up to appeal the decision against the NDP, and Obama still intends to honor the National Day of Prayer (thanks, Mr President — you are apparently the kind of disreputable Christian we oppose). The Freedom from Religion Foundation has a petition asking Obama to respect the court decision, and is also looking for contributions to their legal fund. Sign it! Do you really want the likes of Megyn Kelly deciding what is constitutional?

Why do we need to get for-profit companies out of the health care business?

Stories like this one about private insurers operations are one good reason.

Reuters reported on Thursday that WellPoint, the largest U.S. health insurer by enrollment, was using a computer algorithm that automatically targeted patients recently diagnosed with breast cancer, among other conditions.

The software triggered an immediate fraud investigation by the company as it searched for excuses to drop coverage, according to government regulators and investigators.

WellPoint has excuses. One that is almost reasonable is that they automatically scan claims for pre-existing “conditions that patients would likely have known about when they applied for insurance, but insisted it does not single out women with breast cancer.” Which is only almost reasonable until you think it through and realize that they’re admitting that they do actively search for reasons to deny coverage to women with breast cancer, and that their other justification is that they do the same thing for everyone on their plan who comes down with a disease.

I know. They just want to make a profit for their shareholders, and they take it for granted that they profit more if they deny health care to people in need. It seems to me that that is the problem, though: relying for health care on companies that have an incentive to not provide health care doesn’t sound like a smart move.

To be fair, WellPoint has published a lengthy counterargument. They do point out that they have a lot of clients and they do have detection and prevention programs in place, which is good; nowhere do they refute the news report that they “automatically targeted patients recently diagnosed with breast cancer, among other conditions.” In fact, they’re basically admitting it, and all they say that’s relevant is that they do not single out women with breast cancer. Which the original article did not claim.

There is one small piece of WellPoint’s letter that is unintentionally amusing.

Madame Secretary, a three-story pink ribbon hangs in the lobby of our Indianapolis headquarters for many reasons.

I hate those stupid ribbons for everything: they seem to be more a blind and completely empty acknowledgment of a problem with no solution or even any real effort behind them. Want to claim you support something? Slap a magnetic ribbon on your car. Done. If you really want to pretend you care, put up a three-story tall ribbon in your lobby. Is anyone impressed?

Oklahoma…you have left me speechless

They’re considering a new law to keep women ignorant and ashamed.

The governor of Oklahoma is considering tough new abortion bills that would allow doctors to withhold test results showing foetal defects and require women to answer intrusive questions.

The results of the questionnaires would be posted online.

Women would also be required to have a vaginal ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the embryo or foetus in a third bill passed by the legislature on Monday.

So let me get this straight. If a woman in Oklahoma thinks she is pregnant, she can go in for “testing”…but she won’t get to know all the results. And she has to fill out a form so her sexual history can be posted on the web. And she’s going to get a pointless ultrasound and a lecture scripted by the likes of Prolife across America.

Why would anyone do that?

The Mark of the Beast will be foiled by Republicans!

I learned something odd this morning. Three US states have laws on the books, created by Republican legislators, making it illegal to insert microchips into people. Virginia has even declared them to be the mark of the beast from Revelation.

And now Georgia is hoping to join the ranks of the crazy states. There is a bill pending, SB 235, the “Microchip Consent Act of 2009; prohibit requiring a person to be implanted with a microchip”, which is symptomatic of the problem. This nice opinion piece summarizes why it is nuts.

In Gov. Roy Barnes’ stump speech, the bill has become a routine example of the Republican tendency to attack problems that don’t exist, and ignore the ones that do. Besides, Barnes argues, if someone holds him down to insert a microchip in his head, “it should be more than a damned misdemeanor.”

But it goes even deeper than that. These bills, despite the protests of the sponsors, are driven by biblical baloney — there is this weird fear by crazy Christians that the onset of the apocalypse is going to be signified by people getting barcodes or chips or tattoos or something weird on their hand and forehead. The Georgia state house recently witnessed testimony in favor of the bill that shows how close this religious delusion is to serious mental illness.

He was followed by a hefty woman who described herself as a resident of DeKalb County. “I’m also one of the people in Georgia who has a microchip,” the woman said. Slowly, she began to lead the assembled lawmakers down a path they didn’t want to take.

Microchips, the woman began, “infringe on issues that are fundamental to our very existence. Our rights to privacy, our rights to bodily integrity, the right to say no to foreign objects being put in our body.”

She spoke of the “right to work without being tortured by co-workers who are activating these microchips by using their cell phones and other electronic devices.”

She continued. “Microchips are like little beepers. Just imagine, if you will, having a beeper in your rectum or genital area, the most sensitive area of your body. And your beeper numbers displayed on billboards throughout the city. All done without your permission,” she said.

That’s just sad. That woman is ill; she’s paranoid and delusional. And she’s being called upon to support time- and money-wasting legislation to endorse her hallucinations.

Even sadder: the committee hearing this testimony went on to approve the bill.

So you think slavery wasn’t at the heart of the Confederacy…

Then you must read this wonderfully written piece in the Atlantic. The author’s argument is powerful, but the section with the excerpts from the declarations of seccession by various southern states settles the facts of the case. Here’s what Mississippi had to say:

…Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…

If you think that’s bad, read Texas’s:

…in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states…

But it hasn’t ended yet! There’s an ongoing effort to couple the Tea Baggin’ movement with Confederate goals, with just a little revisionism.

“The War Between the States was fought for the same reasons that the tea party movement today is voicing their opinion. And that is that you have large government that’s not listening to the people, there’s going to be heavy taxation,” Fayard said Monday from his home in Duck Hill, Miss. “And the primary cause of the war was not slavery, although slavery was interwoven into the cause, but it was not the cause for the War Between the States.”

The primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. And unsurprisingly, racism is also a significant element in the Tea Party movement. We’re still fighting that damned war.

Mike Huckabee endorses my candidacy for the presidency

I’m a shoo-in now. Although my mind may have just blown up.

In what may come as a surprise for some, Huckabee agreed that an atheist could be fit to serve as president. “I’d rather have an honest atheist than a dishonest religious person,” he said.

Don’t worry. He didn’t mean it. He’s actually just doing some sneaky sniping at Mitt Romney. He continues with a clarification of what he really meant.

It’s better to have a person who says, ‘Look, I just don’t believe, and that’s where my honest position happens to be. I’m frankly more OK with that than a person who says, ‘Oh, I am very much a Christian. I very much love God.’ And then they live as if they are atheists, as if they have no moral groundings at all. That’s more troubling.”

I think it’s nice if a person believes in God. I’d hate to think somebody was making decisions who thought that he couldn’t be higher than himself.

See? He still equates atheism with a complete lack of moral grounding. He’s still a slimebag.

Let’s hide that embarrassing conflict in American culture

i-024386b5e6ebd393af1c6383a3124484-badstats.jpeg

For many years, the NSF has been producing a biennial report on American attitudes (and many other statistics) about science called Science and Engineering Indicators. This year, as they have every year, they got the uncomfortable news that a majority of our compatriots reject human evolution and the Big Bang (that last one might have been partly because of the dumb way the question is phrased). What’s different, though, is that for the first time the NSF has decided to omit the fact.

This is very strange. It is a serious problem in our educational system that so much of the public is vocal in their opposition to a well-established set of ideas — these ought to be relevant data in a survey of national attitudes towards science. Why were they dropped? It isn’t because of an overt whitewash to hide our shame away, it seems — instead, it sounds like it’s an accommodationist’s discomfort with highlighting a conflict between religion and science. At least, that’s how I read the excuses given. John Bruer, a philosopher who led the review team on this section of the report, is open about his reasoning.

Bruer proposed the changes last summer, shortly after NSF sent a draft version of Indicators containing this text to OSTP and other government agencies. In addition to removing a section titled “Evolution and the Big Bang,” Bruer recommended that the board drop a sentence noting that “the only circumstance in which the U.S. scores below other countries on science knowledge comparisons is when many Americans experience a conflict between accepted scientific knowledge and their religious beliefs (e.g., beliefs about evolution).” At a May 2009 meeting of the board’s Indicators committee, Bruer said that he “hoped indicators could be developed that were not as value-charged as evolution.”

Bruer, who was appointed to the 24-member NSB in 2006 and chairs the board’s Education and Human Resources Committee, says he first became concerned about the two survey questions as the lead reviewer for the same chapter in the 2008 Indicators. At the time, the board settled for what Bruer calls “a halfway solution”: adding a disclaimer that many Americans didn’t do well on those questions because the underlying issues brought their value systems in conflict with knowledge. As evidence of that conflict, Bruer notes a 2004 study described in the 2008 Indicators that found 72% of Americans answered correctly when the statement about humans evolving from earlier species was prefaced with the phrase “according to the theory of evolution.” The 2008 volume explains that the different percentages of correct answers “reflect factors beyond unfamiliarity with basic elements of science.”

George Bishop, a political scientist at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio who has studied attitudes toward evolution, believes the board’s argument is defensible. “Because of biblical traditions in American culture, that question is really a measure of belief, not knowledge,” he says. In European and other societies, he adds, “it may be more of a measure of knowledge.”

I’ve emphasized the key phrases in that summary, and actually, I rather agree with them. These are issues in which ignorance isn’t the fundamental problem (although, of course, ignorance contributes), but in which American culture has a serious and active obstacle to advancing scientific awareness, the evangelical stupidity of religion. That is something different from what we find in Europe, and it’s also something more malevolent and pernicious than an inadequate educational system.

It seems to me, though, that that isn’t a reason to drop it from the survey and pretend it doesn’t exist and isn’t a problem. Instead, maybe they should promote it to a whole new section of the summary and emphasize it even more, since they admit that it is an unusual feature of our culture, and one that compels people to give wrong answers on a science survey.

Maybe they could title the section, “The Malign Influence of Religion on American Science Education”.

I also rather like the answer given by Jon Miller, the fellow who has actually conducted the work of doing the survey in the past.

Miller believes that removing the entire section was a clumsy attempt to hide a national embarrassment. “Nobody likes our infant death rate,” he says by way of comparison, “but it doesn’t go away if you quit talking about it.”

Exactly right. But if we do talk about it, we end up asking why it’s so bad, and then we make rich people squirm as we point fingers at our deplorable health care system. And in the case of the question about evolution, we make religious people, and especially the apologists for religion, extremely uncomfortable, because they have been defending this institution of nonsense that has direct effects on measurable aspects of science literacy.

Unfortunately, Bruer has also been caught saying something very stupid.

When Science asked Bruer if individuals who did not accept evolution or the big bang to be true could be described as scientifically literate, he said: “There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution,” adding that such questioning has led to improved understanding of evolutionary theory. When asked if he expected those academics to answer “false” to the statement about humans having evolved from earlier species, Bruer said: “On that particular point, no.”

What was he thinking? The question on the NSF survey is not asking about details of the mechanisms of evolution, so his objection is weirdly irrelevant. I don’t know if he’s hiding away any creationist sympathies (that phrasing is exactly what I’ve heard from many creationists, after all), but it does reveal that he’s not thinking at all deeply about the issue. And for a philosopher, shouldn’t that be a high crime?

Bhattacharjee Y (2010) NSF Board Draws Flak for Dropping Evolution From Indicators. Science 328(5975):150-151.

But you’d think they’d be proud!

Baltimore has a very sensible ordinance that requires pregnancy counseling centers to plainly state what services they provide.

The ordinance requires that a “limited-service pregnancy center” post an easily readable sign, written in English and Spanish, stating that the center does not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth-control services. A center failing to comply within 10 days of being cited could be fined up to $150 a day.

That’s perfectly reasonable, even if the center is directly opposed to abortion — they could cheerfully put up a sign bragging that they do not abort adorable little babies, and take some pride in their position. But no, that’s not what they want to do. We’ve got a ‘counseling center’ here in Morris, for instance, that provides no real help at all. They’ve got little signs around that say something like, “Pregnant? We can help!” with a phone number, and when some frightened teenaged girl calls, their sole purpose is to make sure she does not get an abortion. Stating their position up front and diminishing confusion is exactly what they don’t want — they want their clients confused and worried, susceptible to the lies they’ll tell them.

So perhaps you will be as unsurprised as I am to learn that the Catholic Diocese of Baltimore is suing the city, claiming oppression because they are asked to be clear in the range of services they will offer.

Thomas J. Schetelich, chairman of the board for the Center for Pregnancy Concerns, said that the ordinance singles out the Catholic Church for its anti-abortion stance. The nonprofit, anti-abortion organization receives donations from religious groups supporting women who plan to take their pregnancies to term and operates three of the four local centers.

“Frankly, we would expect our city government to be supporting our sacrificial efforts rather than trying to hinder,” Schetelich said. “We’re disappointed that our stand for life draws opposition.”

Please note: they are talking about four referral centers. They have hired a battery of lawyers to oppose the posting of four signs that state exactly what they regard as a positive, noble, tenet of their faith, that they do not condone abortions. What’s the gripe? If they think it’s an unfair burden to have to pay for four signs, I suspect that if they asked Planned Parenthood or other such organizations, or even asked the community at large, people would chip in to send them a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars, even, to make their own damned signs.

This is simply the Catholic Church suing for the right to keep people in the dark, as they have for so many centuries.

They have no grounds for complaint. As a NARAL director explains,

“This law empowers women by giving them full information up front about what to expect from a limited-service pregnancy center,” said Jennifer Blasdell, the organization’s executive director. “This provision does not ask a facility to provide or counsel for any services they find objectionable, but only asks them to tell the truth about the nature of their services.”

By the way, our local example of anti-abortion ignorance is called the Morris Life Care Pregnancy Center, and it is somehow affiliated with the Morris Evangelical Free Church, our local festering canker of wingnut inanity. They don’t seem to provide any material services at all, other than advice, AKA browbeating and misleading. I am amused to see that they are hosting a father-daughter chastity ball (although they don’t call them that anymore), which is rather creepy.

However, I do commend them on one thing. Right there at the bottom of their web page, they clearly and honestly state this:

“This center does not offer abortion services or abortion referrals. This information is intended for general educational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional medical advice.”

I can’t complain too much about them, then — I disagree vehemently with their opinions, but as long as they’re not pretending to be offering real medical advice and don’t pretend to offer services that they’re actually going to be telling their clients to avoid, they have every right to express their beliefs.

I hate to say this, but the Baltimore Diocese could learn something about honesty from a loony rural Protestant church that teaches that the world is only 6000 years old.

They’re crazy over there in Wisconsin

It’s true — here in Minnesota, we’re always talking about them dingbats next door in Wisconsin, and they are — we live in a place where all our children are above average, dontchaknow, and the only way that is statistically possible is if some place nearby is all below average. So we love to rag on them. Until they mention Michele Bachmann and then we have to hang our head in shame and slink away.

Anyway, the latest news from our neighbor to the east is that some cheesehead named Scott Southworth is trying to strongarm teachers into not following the sex education guidelines, threatening them with jail time if they say anything about condoms.

Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender. It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks.

OK, but mixed alcoholic drinks are legal, and lots of people consume them…and so will many of those kids, hopefully once they’re of legal age but not before (although we know many of them will jump the gun — and think of all the awful pina coladas and over-strong rum & cokes they’ll slosh down if not properly trained. Think of the children!) There’s nothing wrong with urging responsible restraint in both alcohol consumption and sexual behavior, while also explaining what they actually, honestly are.

Unless, of course, you’re a conservative kook who thinks the solution to every peril is to keep everyone in a state of maximal ignorance. Case in point: when this bill to teach medically accurate information about contraceptives in sex ed classes was introduced, every single Republican voted in lockstep against it.

This is more like telling kids who are too young to drive about using seatbelts. It’s not telling them to get in an accident, it’s telling them to take precautions in case something happens. And in the case of sex, we know a collision is pretty much inevitable at some point, so we should be offering information and sensible safety in those years when they are at greatest risk.