The Privilege of Claiming Christ's Vicarship

From Digital Journal:

The UK government is said to have set in motion a law change that will prevent the Pope from being arrested when he visits the country in September. 

Officials in Whitehall – the UK government’s administrative offices – are said to be worried over plans by the atheist authors Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to have Pope Benedict arrested for crimes against humanity, because of his alleged cover-up of priestly assaults on children. 

“Mr Dawkins, the atheist campaigner, and Mr Hitchens, an atheist author, asked human rights lawyers in April to put together a case for charging the Pope over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse of children in the Catholic church,” reports Pink News today. 

Its report adds: “Justice Secretary Ken Clarke proposed changes to the law today which would require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to any arrest warrant issued under universal jurisdiction.” The Pope’s proposed visit has ever been free of controversy since it was announced last year. 

A recent suggestion by the Pope’s second-in-command, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, that child abuse and paedophilia were connected with homosexuality brought condemnation even from fellow Catholics in the UK...

Pink News quotes Justice Secretary Clarke as saying of the law change: “Our commitment to our international obligations and to ensuring that there is no impunity for those accused of crimes of universal jurisdiction is unwavering.

“It is important, however, that universal-jurisdiction cases should be proceeded with in this country only on the basis of solid evidence that is likely to lead to a successful prosecution – otherwise there is a risk of damaging our ability to help in conflict resolution or to pursue a coherent foreign policy. 

“The government has concluded, after careful consideration, that it would be appropriate to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant can be issued to a private prosecutor in respect of an offence of universal jurisdiction.” 

 Full article here.

The Long and Winding Road

gets a little shorter...
From Spiegel Online:

At a time when British patients are forced to wait as long as two weeks for simple operations like appendectomies and when expensive medications are often rejected, many are asking why the government continues to pay for treatments whose effectiveness hasn't been proven.

In a comprehensive report released in February, Britain's House of Commons concluded that, "to maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS." Several months later, the British Medical Association decried homeopathy as "witchcraft" in a resolution agreed to by hundreds of doctors belonging to the group, which represents the interests of more than 140,000 doctors across the country. So long as there is no scientific proof of its medical effectiveness, then homeopathy should no longer be covered, the doctors argued.

Critics don't need to dig very deep into the cannon of homeopathic literature to find fodder to feed their arguments. A quick look through the "Handbook of Materia Medica," uncovers a list of odd homeopathic agents: Aphids, ovary extract from cows, hornets, cockroaches, woodlouse, toad poison, mercury, saliva from rabid dogs or skunk secretion. You'll even find Coca-Cola, rotten beef, canine excrement, condom rubber, human testicle extract and horse hair in the lists.

How long until British taxpayers are not required to subsidize Harry Potter's Magical College of Quackopaths?  I think not long.

A Burden for Your Carry

Video by TheThinkingAtheist.

Baloney Detection Kit

A recent conversation with a friend regarding conspiracy theories recalled my memory to this classic from RDF TV:

Lady Gaga and Pickles (Made You Look)

Dave Weigel, sub-blogging for Andrew Sullivan over at the Daily Dish, brought my attention to this gem of an article by Gene Weingarten on the changing world of journalism (how's that for search-engine-optimization?):

Call me a grumpy old codger, but I liked the old way better. For one thing, I used to have at least a rudimentary idea of how a newspaper got produced: On deadline, drunks with cigars wrote stories that were edited by constipated but knowledgeable people, then printed on paper by enormous machines operated by people with stupid hats and dirty faces.

Everything is different today, and it's much more confusing. For one thing, there are no real deadlines anymore, because stories are constantly being updated for the Web. All stories are due now, and most of the constipated people are gone, replaced by multiplatform idea triage specialists. In this hectic environment, mistakes are more likely to be made, meaning that a story might identify Uzbekistan as "a subspecies of goat."

Fortunately, this new system enjoys the services of tens of thousands of fact-checking "citizen journalists" who write "comments." They will read the Uzbekistan story and instantly alert everyone that BARACK OBAMA IS A LIEING PIECE OF CRAP.

I basically like "comments," though they can seem a little jarring: spit-flecked rants that are appended to a product that at least tries for a measure of objectivity and dignity. It's as though when you order a sirloin steak, it comes with a side of maggots.

 Read the whole article.

Gopnik and Pinker Discuss Darwin

Subsidizing Settlements

Hitch in Slate:

The impressive documentation assembled by the Times revealed some familiar and ugly contours. Many of the U.S.-based pro-settlement forces are connected to extreme Israeli nationalist groups with proven records of violence (including the heirs of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane) or to the wilder pulpits of Christian extremism, such as the one occupied by the hysterical Rev. John Hagee, or to essentially racketeering outfits, such as the one operated until recently by the disgraced "lobbyist" Jack Abramoff. It comes as no surprise to find that much of the material provided by these "charitable" fronts consists of sniper equipment, night-vision binoculars, bulletproof vehicles, and guard dogs.

So here you have it in plain words: The U.S. Treasury Department passively allows tax breaks to vicious and fanatical groups whose activity, if conducted by Israelis, would be illegal under Israeli law! (It's more than a decade since Israel banned tax deductions for groups that devote themselves to the creation of unrecognized "outposts" on the West Bank.) This, in effect, constitutes an official American subsidy to outlaw zealot groups whose aim is to destroy any chance of accomplishing what is this country's declared foreign-policy objective...

The U.S. Constitution is icily hard and clear on the point: There can be no "establishment of religion" by our government. And these nasty little settlements are quite unambiguously aimed at the promulgation of a sectarian faith—and in its most literal and fundamentalist and exclusive form at that.

So here we have found a means of a) alienating even the most flexible and patient Palestinians; while b) frustrating the efforts of the more principled and compromising Israelis; while c) empowering and financing some of the creepiest forces in American and Israeli society; and d) heaping ordure on our own secular founding documents. When will the Justice Department and the Congress and the Supreme Court become aware of this huge and rank offense, which is designed to bring us ever nearer to holy war?

More here...

Restoring Science to its Rightful Place?

Not really, not yet.

"The reason that the Bush people were able to manipulate science is because there are no rules against it. And there still aren't," Ruch said.

Half-Full or Half-Empty? Humanity, Past and Future.

Multicultural Breakdown

Ayaan at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

Quackwatch Sued by Quacks

The day before yesterday, I posted an excerpt from a New Scientist article on autism and the misguided actions taken by some parents to mitigate the disease.  In the article, a certain company called Doctor's Data was mentioned in the context of those who might want to practice chelation on their children:

A parent wondering whether to try this drastic treatment may struggle to separate fact from fiction. Doctor's Data, a private lab based in St. Charles, Illinois, sells a test that parents can use to measure the levels of heavy metals in their child's urine. But an investigation by the medical website Quackwatch found that the Doctor's Data test gave results that were misleadingly high. Doctor's Data did not reply to a request from New Scientist for comment.

Now, Doctor's Data is suing Dr. Stephen Barrett, M.D., of Quackwatch, for exposing their practices.  In a letter sent by the Doctor's Data lawyer, accusations are laid:

It has recently come to the attention of our client, Doctor's Data, Inc., an Illinois corporation, that you have, on a continuing basis, harmed Doctor's Data by transmitting false, fraudulent and defamatory information about this company in a variety of ways, including on the internet and in other publications. Doctor's Data is shocked that you would intentionally try to harm its business and its relationship not only with doctors but also with the public. Doctor's Data has also learned that you have apparently conspired with and encouraged individuals to seek litigation against it, and have filed false complaints at various government and regulatory agencies against Doctor's Data...

We demand that you cease and desist any and all comments regarding Doctor's Data, which have been and are false, fraudulent, defamatory or otherwise not truthful, and make a complete and full retraction of all statements you have made in the past, including those which have led in some instances to litigation. Such comments include, but are not limited to, those made in your article entitled, "How the 'Urine Toxic Metals' Test Is Used to Defraud Patients," which you authored and posted on Quackwatch.com. "The best evidence for reckless disregard," you have written, "is failure to modify where notified." Consider this notice to you that if you do not make these full and complete retractions within 10 days of the date of this letter, in each and every place in which you have made false and fraudulent, untruthful or otherwise defamatory statements, Doctor's Data will proceed with litigation against you and any organizations, entities and individuals acting in common cause or concert with you, to the full extent of the law, and will seek injunctive relief and monetary damages, both compensatory and punitive.

Dr. Barrett responded with a letter:

     I take great pride in being accurate and carefully consider complaints about what I write. However, your letter does not identify a single statement by me that you believe is inaccurate or "fraudulent." The only thing you mention is my article about how the urine toxic metals test is used to defraud patients: (http://www.quackwatch.org/t). The article's title reflects my opinion, the basis of which the article explains in detail.
     If you want me to consider modifying the article, please identify every sentence to which you object and explain why you believe it is not correct.

 To which the Doctor's Data lawyer replied, but also didn't:

Dr. Barrett,
      You have been making false statements about Doctor's Data and have damaged this company's business and reputation, and you have done so for personal gain and your own self-interest, disguised as performing a public service.  Your writings and conduct are clearly designed to damage Doctor's Data.  If you don't retract your false claims and issue a public apology, the lawsuit will be filed.

Again, from Dr. Barrett:

My letter asked you to identify the claims that you believe are false. You have not identified a single sentence that you believe is inaccurate. Since you have failed to do so, I have no choice but to assume that you cannot. My offer remains open, as it is to anyone who is criticized on any of my sites. If you identify anything that you consider inaccurate, I will seriously consider what you say and act accordingly.

True to their threat, Doctor's Data filed suit.  To help Dr. Barrett with his legal defense, go to this page.