Science not so impartial, whatever either of those two words mean!
A really interesting article to help bring some enlightenment to the crazed devotees of mythical 'Science' anyhow. As they say about guns, science doesn't tell the truth, people do (or don't). And it's a lot more complicated than a machine you can point and click.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Monday, 19 October 2009
baldy!
There's a seriously amusing picture of me on the Hope website, thanks to Dave's excellent media skills (in fact almost all the website is down to him). I'm the one holding forth on the left. Of course, it is important for any visitors to the site to know that not everyone is as shiny as me, hence the full heads of hair in evidence in all the other pictures.
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Counsel of despair?
Occasionally The Economist and I think alike. Just a few weeks after I began to mull over in conversations again the idea of legalising most drugs [including at the recent NTI residential – how good is that, a theological and ministry training conference where we can talk about hard drugs, watch The Devil Wears Prada, enthuse over the doctrine of the Trinity, marvel at Calvin’s biog and seriously debilitating ailments, slip around in the snow and shed tears of joy at our salvation!?] there was a big editorial making the case.
First, the liberal principle.
Second, the major economic and public order benefits to producer countries.
Third, the reduced power of organised crime (along with reduction in risk of contamination or poor quality product) in richer, user countries.
Fourth, the tax receipts coming from the trade rather than the billions spent on enforcement, which has not, despite the financial and human costs, altered the overall amount of Andean cocaine produced nor prevented drug taking in Britain from rising dramatically over the past few decades, nor…
Of course there are major questions about public good, morality and the role of the law (and the state) in restricting access to certain things. But although this might sound like a counsel of despair, it may be that whatever the moral evil in this case [which may not be sooooo great, if properly handled, in moderation, etc], the practicalities of enforcement are SO awkward that the law simply should not go there. Consider personal nastiness, a moral evil, responsible for plenty of suffering (small and large, short- and long-term) the world over; yet no government tries to ban it in law! [Of course, some of the ways in which interpersonal nastiness is expressed are banned in law… but not all!]
Of course, a major question regarding legalization is amnesty for past crimes of drug smugglers. But is it possible that breaking the power of the organised gangs by reducing their income and their dark monopoly on a economically and socially important substance would make it easier to catch up with the leaders?
First, the liberal principle.
Second, the major economic and public order benefits to producer countries.
Third, the reduced power of organised crime (along with reduction in risk of contamination or poor quality product) in richer, user countries.
Fourth, the tax receipts coming from the trade rather than the billions spent on enforcement, which has not, despite the financial and human costs, altered the overall amount of Andean cocaine produced nor prevented drug taking in Britain from rising dramatically over the past few decades, nor…
Of course there are major questions about public good, morality and the role of the law (and the state) in restricting access to certain things. But although this might sound like a counsel of despair, it may be that whatever the moral evil in this case [which may not be sooooo great, if properly handled, in moderation, etc], the practicalities of enforcement are SO awkward that the law simply should not go there. Consider personal nastiness, a moral evil, responsible for plenty of suffering (small and large, short- and long-term) the world over; yet no government tries to ban it in law! [Of course, some of the ways in which interpersonal nastiness is expressed are banned in law… but not all!]
Of course, a major question regarding legalization is amnesty for past crimes of drug smugglers. But is it possible that breaking the power of the organised gangs by reducing their income and their dark monopoly on a economically and socially important substance would make it easier to catch up with the leaders?
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
Doomsday
Watching this film left me feeling a bit funny.
On the plus side tension, decent performances, an intriguing concept, value-for-money special effects, critique of the overweening state, realism about the darkness in man's heart, Bob Hoskins and Alexander Siddig in minor roles...
On the minus side gratuitous nudity, gruesome violence, a silly ending and an even sillier cannibal feast sequence.
I also thought it was surprising that no other film has been called Doomsday, though, in the century of cinema that we've had.
On the plus side tension, decent performances, an intriguing concept, value-for-money special effects, critique of the overweening state, realism about the darkness in man's heart, Bob Hoskins and Alexander Siddig in minor roles...
On the minus side gratuitous nudity, gruesome violence, a silly ending and an even sillier cannibal feast sequence.
I also thought it was surprising that no other film has been called Doomsday, though, in the century of cinema that we've had.
The Economist
Thanks to Mrs L, the old folk and her old folk I am enjoying a year’s subscription to this august publication. There is a high volume of adverts (the average seems to be around 30% of page space per issue) but they are often classy adverts, and the news material and comment is fascinating and considerably more international than your average paper.
So, I now know everything. Which is nice.
I know, for example, that in America, expectations about transport are different to what they are here (among the class I belong to anyway), and that The Economist’s anonymous writers can be quite witty…
Speaking of the aftermath of the under-reported hurricane September that hit the South with a one-two, p.60 of Oct 4-10, 2008 reads [tricolon with bathetic climax?]
Most of the Gulf of Mexico’s crude oil production halted before Gustav, and after the hurricans hit the refineries were slow to recover. As of September 29th, according to the Department of Energy, more than half of production was still shut down. Two pipelines serve most of the south-east, and severe shortages resulted. [one…] People started to fill up whenever they could, sometimes queuing for hours. [two…] Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said that in Atlanta and Charlotte and Chattanooga the situation was “like a third-world country.” [three!] People contemplated public transport and telecommuting.
Oh, the hardship, the hardship.
So, I now know everything. Which is nice.
I know, for example, that in America, expectations about transport are different to what they are here (among the class I belong to anyway), and that The Economist’s anonymous writers can be quite witty…
Speaking of the aftermath of the under-reported hurricane September that hit the South with a one-two, p.60 of Oct 4-10, 2008 reads [tricolon with bathetic climax?]
Most of the Gulf of Mexico’s crude oil production halted before Gustav, and after the hurricans hit the refineries were slow to recover. As of September 29th, according to the Department of Energy, more than half of production was still shut down. Two pipelines serve most of the south-east, and severe shortages resulted. [one…] People started to fill up whenever they could, sometimes queuing for hours. [two…] Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said that in Atlanta and Charlotte and Chattanooga the situation was “like a third-world country.” [three!] People contemplated public transport and telecommuting.
Oh, the hardship, the hardship.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
an Anatolian ramble
This evening, while Mrs L is away in Wales, PG and I watched The Count of Monte Cristo, a only- slightly dreary swashbuckler in the spirit of the 30s, rather passe to this 21st century viewer, but still quite fun.
Then I wandered over to zaman.com for some Turkey news. Having spent a bit more time on the book project recently (not to mention discussions regarding Israel) I have been pondering 'missionary' and 'anti-missionary' activities in the Middle East in history and today. As an evangelical, to me 'missionary' is a neutral or even positive word - I don't even shudder when someone says "Buddhist missionary" or "Muslim missionary" to me. But the word has troubling connotations for many people. Westerners probably can't imagine what Turkish commentators, whether rabidly secularist or openly Islamist, intend by the word "missionary".
Well, what did I find on Zaman but this intriguing article about a former missionary associate turned Muslim scaremonger. Respect to Zaman, they just about avoid spitting while saying "missionary", and even appear to be rather more suspicious of this chap (who, it turns out, is on the government payroll, or on the deep state payroll) than they are of Turkish protestants. This list of accusations, for example, is intriguing. Zaman tells us a little about an infamous book by this multi-tasking man...
Çınar had claimed in 2005 that international missionary institutions had allocated $73 billion for Turkey and that the missionaries in Turkey produced 15 million Bibles and distributed them for free. He also said there were 40,000 church-homes in Turkey, while claiming that foreigners were engaging in illegal missionary activities in Turkey, that they supported Kurdish and Alevi separatism and that they were involved in smuggling of some historical artifacts.
The members of the list are not exactly equivalent. Even allowing for my Westernised, Christianised bias, the distribution of free Bibles seems less than sinister. The presence of 'church-homes' (delightfully ambiguous, and unintentionally wonderfully encouraging for the cause of the gospel I'd say - when the nations start raging you know there must be a reason) in a country is also rather less than criminal. I would LOVE to know what the illegal activities were - are all 'missionary' activities illegal? What is a missionary activity? Does breathing on the part of a missionary count? Who counts as a missionary!? Support for separatism could be criminal, especially if it involved conspiracy to commit criminal activities - then again, someone who thought that a Kurdish state was a good idea might be accused of "supporting Kurdish separatism" even if all they did was mention their opinion to someone [working for the government?] down the pub. Smuggling, of course, sounds like something you can accuse people of - fair enough - don't think I condone crime as I mock Mr Çınar. Of course all these are potentially evil actions if you think that "missionary" is a swearword. Which just goes to show the power of language and of 'what everybody knows'.
All this sent me off on an interesting search - for Alevi separatism, of all things, not something I knew much about.
This dense academic piece reminds me once again just how complex everything is and how teeny my understanding will ever be. [Spot the Islamic missionaries on page 7 in amongst the cultural imperialism of the Sultanate in the late 19th century. Will Zaman raise its arms against that, one wonders. Will anyone sneak into the offices of zealous Sunnis and slit their throats for anything as terrible as being keen to see people convert to their way of writing the world...? Oh no, it's OK, it happened before Attaturk so it's all fine.]
Any number of online encyclopedia articles will give you a flavour of who they are and what their religious slant is. Religious differences and communal tensions with Sunni Turk and Sunni Kurd and who calls who a what and what the Kemalists tried to do about 'national' identity and all manner of interesting things will pop up at you.
There was a gruesome massacre of Alevis in 1993 which the police did nothing about. Seems to have been carried out by a Sunni 'Islamist' mob. Needless to say the Alevi diaspora is none too pleased with that.
Meanwhile, Alevi and Kurd and violence and terrorism seem to be words that get linked by many Turks - and not surprising, since lots of Alevis are Kurdish and lots of Kurds openly or tacitly cheer (or worse) for the PKK et al. As Mustapha Aykol points out on his White Path blog from January the reputation of Alevis for 'liberalism' is only partly deserved. [Watch out for the great and very revealing quote from respondent number two, All I can say is I disapprove of any separatist or self-segregating behavior by any community. All I can say is, separating from whom or what? Who gets to choose where the lines are drawn or how thick a line counts as anything in particular. And if the majority segregates (persecutes) the minority do they simultaneously 'segregate' themselves, thereby incurring Kerim's disapproval? Actually, that's not all I can say ;-)]
Beyond that I shall clearly have my work cut out to understand what is going on...
Then I wandered over to zaman.com for some Turkey news. Having spent a bit more time on the book project recently (not to mention discussions regarding Israel) I have been pondering 'missionary' and 'anti-missionary' activities in the Middle East in history and today. As an evangelical, to me 'missionary' is a neutral or even positive word - I don't even shudder when someone says "Buddhist missionary" or "Muslim missionary" to me. But the word has troubling connotations for many people. Westerners probably can't imagine what Turkish commentators, whether rabidly secularist or openly Islamist, intend by the word "missionary".
Well, what did I find on Zaman but this intriguing article about a former missionary associate turned Muslim scaremonger. Respect to Zaman, they just about avoid spitting while saying "missionary", and even appear to be rather more suspicious of this chap (who, it turns out, is on the government payroll, or on the deep state payroll) than they are of Turkish protestants. This list of accusations, for example, is intriguing. Zaman tells us a little about an infamous book by this multi-tasking man...
Çınar had claimed in 2005 that international missionary institutions had allocated $73 billion for Turkey and that the missionaries in Turkey produced 15 million Bibles and distributed them for free. He also said there were 40,000 church-homes in Turkey, while claiming that foreigners were engaging in illegal missionary activities in Turkey, that they supported Kurdish and Alevi separatism and that they were involved in smuggling of some historical artifacts.
The members of the list are not exactly equivalent. Even allowing for my Westernised, Christianised bias, the distribution of free Bibles seems less than sinister. The presence of 'church-homes' (delightfully ambiguous, and unintentionally wonderfully encouraging for the cause of the gospel I'd say - when the nations start raging you know there must be a reason) in a country is also rather less than criminal. I would LOVE to know what the illegal activities were - are all 'missionary' activities illegal? What is a missionary activity? Does breathing on the part of a missionary count? Who counts as a missionary!? Support for separatism could be criminal, especially if it involved conspiracy to commit criminal activities - then again, someone who thought that a Kurdish state was a good idea might be accused of "supporting Kurdish separatism" even if all they did was mention their opinion to someone [working for the government?] down the pub. Smuggling, of course, sounds like something you can accuse people of - fair enough - don't think I condone crime as I mock Mr Çınar. Of course all these are potentially evil actions if you think that "missionary" is a swearword. Which just goes to show the power of language and of 'what everybody knows'.
All this sent me off on an interesting search - for Alevi separatism, of all things, not something I knew much about.
This dense academic piece reminds me once again just how complex everything is and how teeny my understanding will ever be. [Spot the Islamic missionaries on page 7 in amongst the cultural imperialism of the Sultanate in the late 19th century. Will Zaman raise its arms against that, one wonders. Will anyone sneak into the offices of zealous Sunnis and slit their throats for anything as terrible as being keen to see people convert to their way of writing the world...? Oh no, it's OK, it happened before Attaturk so it's all fine.]
Any number of online encyclopedia articles will give you a flavour of who they are and what their religious slant is. Religious differences and communal tensions with Sunni Turk and Sunni Kurd and who calls who a what and what the Kemalists tried to do about 'national' identity and all manner of interesting things will pop up at you.
There was a gruesome massacre of Alevis in 1993 which the police did nothing about. Seems to have been carried out by a Sunni 'Islamist' mob. Needless to say the Alevi diaspora is none too pleased with that.
Meanwhile, Alevi and Kurd and violence and terrorism seem to be words that get linked by many Turks - and not surprising, since lots of Alevis are Kurdish and lots of Kurds openly or tacitly cheer (or worse) for the PKK et al. As Mustapha Aykol points out on his White Path blog from January the reputation of Alevis for 'liberalism' is only partly deserved. [Watch out for the great and very revealing quote from respondent number two, All I can say is I disapprove of any separatist or self-segregating behavior by any community. All I can say is, separating from whom or what? Who gets to choose where the lines are drawn or how thick a line counts as anything in particular. And if the majority segregates (persecutes) the minority do they simultaneously 'segregate' themselves, thereby incurring Kerim's disapproval? Actually, that's not all I can say ;-)]
Beyond that I shall clearly have my work cut out to understand what is going on...
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
correction - on the radio
Regarding the previous post, I am reliably informed by my mother that the BBC interviewer was Roger Bolton, not John Humphrys.
Thursday, 24 April 2008
on the radio
the other Sunday morning was this very interesting chat between John Humphrys and a certain Dr Christopher Watkin of Magdelene College, Cambridge, on the subject of his recent Cambridge Paper on the name 'evangelical' and one of its cousins 'fundamentalist'.
I don't think I've ever heard such a fair interview on the subject of Christianity. Well done to the BBC on this occasion and well done to Dr W.
I don't think I've ever heard such a fair interview on the subject of Christianity. Well done to the BBC on this occasion and well done to Dr W.
Monday, 24 December 2007
why are they all in the Guardian?
To be fair, it's not all the Guardian's fault. It is the newspaper that most resembles a newspaper (not that the competition is all that spectacular). But this story was quite foolish. Please read it...
Doctors call for free condoms in pubs and taxis to protect against sexual diseases (18 Dec)
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Something to clear up first. The headline is misleading, since the good Prof said "it might make more sense to give condoms away in pubs, clubs and taxis". This was apparently a suggestion of "doctors", though only one doctor is quoted making this suggestion.
The idea that giving a binge drinker a condom at the point at which s/he is drunk is the answer to the problem of STDs and unwanted pregnancies is, frankly, ridiculous. How many inebriated people who are prepared to sleep with near strangers are going to (a) be in a position to remember that they have this condom, (b) remember how to use it and (c) actually put that into practice?
"Oh, here's a free condom. That gives you a couple of quid extra to spend on booze now you don't have to bother to use your brain and visit that vending machine in the toilets". Nice.
Do these fools really think that lack of access to contraceptive devices (which don't protect against all STDs anyway) is the problem? At least someone was willing to suggest that excessive alcohol consumption might be the problem (Linda Tucker, co-author of the report). But what about the cultural dissociation of sex from marriage?
What a silly question.
Doctors call for free condoms in pubs and taxis to protect against sexual diseases (18 Dec)
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Something to clear up first. The headline is misleading, since the good Prof said "it might make more sense to give condoms away in pubs, clubs and taxis". This was apparently a suggestion of "doctors", though only one doctor is quoted making this suggestion.
The idea that giving a binge drinker a condom at the point at which s/he is drunk is the answer to the problem of STDs and unwanted pregnancies is, frankly, ridiculous. How many inebriated people who are prepared to sleep with near strangers are going to (a) be in a position to remember that they have this condom, (b) remember how to use it and (c) actually put that into practice?
"Oh, here's a free condom. That gives you a couple of quid extra to spend on booze now you don't have to bother to use your brain and visit that vending machine in the toilets". Nice.
Do these fools really think that lack of access to contraceptive devices (which don't protect against all STDs anyway) is the problem? At least someone was willing to suggest that excessive alcohol consumption might be the problem (Linda Tucker, co-author of the report). But what about the cultural dissociation of sex from marriage?
What a silly question.
Sunday, 23 December 2007
there are plenty of fools here in the UK
Yesterday's Guardian Weekend magazine carried an extract from Somewhere Towards the End, the memoirs of Diana Athill (who?).
"There are some things, sexual infidelities among them, that do no harm if they remain unknown - or, for that matter, are known and accepted. I have only to ask myself which I would choose, if forced to do so, between the extreme of belief that a whole family' honour is stained by an unfaithful wife unless she's killed, and the attitude often attributed to the French, that however far from admirable sexual infidelity is, it is perfectly acceptable if conducted properly. Vive la France!"
I wonder, are there any positions in between those two extremes?
Furthermore, what kind of culture finds X "perfectly acceptable" when X is "far from admirable". Certainly not one I would be happy to choose!
And while I'm here, the frame of reference for doing no harm (first sentence) is underspecified. Maybe it's true that person B is not harmed appreciably (in their own opinion) by an unknown infidelity on the part of their partner, person A. But what of the harm to A? And doesn't deceit harm a relationship, just a teeny bit...? The complex dynamics of relationships and morality are clearly not what Athill is interested in. "Loyalty is not a favourite virtue of mine", she quips, revealingly close to mentioning an act of infidelity against her that clearly caused her plenty of pain. Building a philosophy of life on wound-licking with fingers in ears doesn't seem sensible.
"There are some things, sexual infidelities among them, that do no harm if they remain unknown - or, for that matter, are known and accepted. I have only to ask myself which I would choose, if forced to do so, between the extreme of belief that a whole family' honour is stained by an unfaithful wife unless she's killed, and the attitude often attributed to the French, that however far from admirable sexual infidelity is, it is perfectly acceptable if conducted properly. Vive la France!"
I wonder, are there any positions in between those two extremes?
Furthermore, what kind of culture finds X "perfectly acceptable" when X is "far from admirable". Certainly not one I would be happy to choose!
And while I'm here, the frame of reference for doing no harm (first sentence) is underspecified. Maybe it's true that person B is not harmed appreciably (in their own opinion) by an unknown infidelity on the part of their partner, person A. But what of the harm to A? And doesn't deceit harm a relationship, just a teeny bit...? The complex dynamics of relationships and morality are clearly not what Athill is interested in. "Loyalty is not a favourite virtue of mine", she quips, revealingly close to mentioning an act of infidelity against her that clearly caused her plenty of pain. Building a philosophy of life on wound-licking with fingers in ears doesn't seem sensible.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
the most surprising thing
is that the liberal media appears to be surprised about the fact that "lessons in hate" have been found at mosques across the country. (Yes, the Times does count as liberal!)
The remarkable ignorance in the West about some of the most basic aspects of Islamic history and theology has been a major factor in the current tense situation. A kind of patronising indifference towards Middle Eastern culture (blended with an Orientalist wonder at the trappings) bred of years of military preeminence, economic success and confidence in a (post-)'Christian' way of life means that suddenly we are all surprised when people who have been indirectly (and in some cases directly) hurt and offended by Western governments and companies start to respond with violence. But really, to find that surprising is more than a little naive.
Furthermore, the resources are there in the Islamic tradition to foster a culture of exclusivism and violence. [And, given the right technological advances, the conditions are there for ideologically-driven mass murderers to arise from among the people, not just in the board rooms of governments around the world.] We in the West might well be ignorant of the many Islamic cultures around the world that are generally 'nice' (in the sense of not supporting open hatred and terrorism), and we might indeed need to be reminded of the relative benignity of some Ottoman rule in the early modern period, particularly as compared with some of the brutality in Europe. However, we also need to be reminded of the historical roots of Islam - conquest, forced conversion and massacre. And of the intellectual roots - not just the hair-splitting of jurists down the centuries and modern-day so-called liberal muslims, but the Koranic text itself (which in places enjoins violence, however ambiguous a modern application might be, depending on your hermeneutic) an the reams of Hadith, which are very clear in their endorsement of violence.
It's enough to make anyone run into the arms of Fethullah Gulen. Which is what a lot of people are doing! And if I'd had the time, I would have toddled off to this fascinating conference in London at the weekend: Muslim World in Transition, Contributions of the Gulen Movement. Thankfully the proceedings of the conference are already up on he website (all 755 pages) so that will keep me occupied if I ever have a dull moment in the next few weeks!
(As it happens Kate and I were enjoying a film festival at L'Abri in Hampshire along with PG, who generously drove us there and back, which was tremendous fun in every respect!)
The remarkable ignorance in the West about some of the most basic aspects of Islamic history and theology has been a major factor in the current tense situation. A kind of patronising indifference towards Middle Eastern culture (blended with an Orientalist wonder at the trappings) bred of years of military preeminence, economic success and confidence in a (post-)'Christian' way of life means that suddenly we are all surprised when people who have been indirectly (and in some cases directly) hurt and offended by Western governments and companies start to respond with violence. But really, to find that surprising is more than a little naive.
Furthermore, the resources are there in the Islamic tradition to foster a culture of exclusivism and violence. [And, given the right technological advances, the conditions are there for ideologically-driven mass murderers to arise from among the people, not just in the board rooms of governments around the world.] We in the West might well be ignorant of the many Islamic cultures around the world that are generally 'nice' (in the sense of not supporting open hatred and terrorism), and we might indeed need to be reminded of the relative benignity of some Ottoman rule in the early modern period, particularly as compared with some of the brutality in Europe. However, we also need to be reminded of the historical roots of Islam - conquest, forced conversion and massacre. And of the intellectual roots - not just the hair-splitting of jurists down the centuries and modern-day so-called liberal muslims, but the Koranic text itself (which in places enjoins violence, however ambiguous a modern application might be, depending on your hermeneutic) an the reams of Hadith, which are very clear in their endorsement of violence.
It's enough to make anyone run into the arms of Fethullah Gulen. Which is what a lot of people are doing! And if I'd had the time, I would have toddled off to this fascinating conference in London at the weekend: Muslim World in Transition, Contributions of the Gulen Movement. Thankfully the proceedings of the conference are already up on he website (all 755 pages) so that will keep me occupied if I ever have a dull moment in the next few weeks!
(As it happens Kate and I were enjoying a film festival at L'Abri in Hampshire along with PG, who generously drove us there and back, which was tremendous fun in every respect!)
Friday, 15 June 2007
Internet Watchdog
These bits of software are extremely useful. It's not just kids who need protecting from the internet, it's adults, especially blokes, and especially me. How easy it is to idly find damaging and offensive material, and how easy it is to look just that little bit longer. The software we've got really needs to be updated to prevent access to a sub-species of pornography currently not in its database. Professional Wrestling, whose association of sexuality and violence is in fact hideous. I grew up watching the occasional episode of Sunday afternoon wrestling on the telly - kind of fun, kind of silly, kind of fascinating. But in recent years it seems to have got nastier (surprise, surprise) and involves more unnecessary soft porn than [insert tacky celeb magazine here]. Perusing the webpages of the wwe led to another Being John Malkovich moment (do we really need to watch it to know about its nastiness? What do we gain from that?) - except without the excuse that what I was could access pretended to be art or in any indirect fashion ennobling. I rather think that's called sin. Which is not trivial.
It can hardly help men who struggle against pornography (which I think includes all of us) to have such a cheapening of the body - of the person - on display at every turn.
It can hardly help men who struggle against pornography (which I think includes all of us) to have such a cheapening of the body - of the person - on display at every turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)