I'll admit it was an ironic smile, but still, it struck me as rather funny behaviour in a group that declares they don't believe in God, religion, or any form of Higher Power. Say what? Yes, the report in the Huffington Post says that a lot of Atheists pray. Under the title of "Atheist Prayer. Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Non-Believers" the Huff Post reports on the interesting fact that many who claim to be atheists still resort to some forms of religious activity.
According to a survey reported in the Washington Post there are some 46 million people in the US (total population 349 million) who do not have any religious affiliation. This includes some 13 million who identify themselves as Atheists or Agnostics. According to the report a significant minority of those calling themselves Atheists 'pray' regularly, and the percentage is higher among Agnostics. It probably bears out my late grandfather's assertion from the First World War (he was seriously wounded on the first day of the Somme offensive and served the rest of the War in the Royal Garrison Artillery in various offensives along the Western Front) that "there are no Atheists in a shell hole or among the dying in the trenches."
It does smack of G K Chesterton's statement that the absence of faith does not mean an absence of belief. He added "it simply means they will believe in anything".
I confess that this report made me think of the retort made by an elderly priest I knew when he was confronted in a pub we had all resorted to after Evensong. The inebriated gentleman approached and loudly proclaimed himself an Atheist, saying, "I don't believe in any of this God nonsense - you lot are no better than anyone else." Our priest smiled sweetly offered the man a seat and replied, "You know, it's a funny thing, you're right about us, but, while you don't believe in God, He believes in you."
I think all of us go through periods when we look at what science is telling us and have our doubts about God. The thing is that when you look at what science can't explain, like how all the billions of atoms that make up the individual cells in our bodies take one form in us, another in other forms of life and even more miraculously actually manage to hold a shape and form, you have to ask some other questions. As the line from a show I recall from the 1970s on the Cosmos said, we are all made up of the dust of the stars. Fine, I don't have a problem with that, I know it to be true, because, under a microscope and in a laboratory with the right bits of kit, it can be demonstrated that my flesh and bone and even the liquid bits of me (around 80%) is composed of 'star dust'. And yes, we can say we believe it all holds together because of electronic and gravitational attractions between the atoms.
What we can't say is why one lump of 'star dust' is alive, and another inanimate.
As to the praying Atheists, I don't actually think God minds what the say they believe. He knows what they really do believe deep down, and when it suits Him, they'll probably get a surprise of the more pleasant kind. Keep praying people - it's good for you even if you aren't sure what or who is listening.
Monday, 1 July 2013
Friday, 28 June 2013
Homer Simpson the new male image?
I was somewhat surprised to read this article in The Guardian, entitled Men and boys now second class citizens. It touches on a number of issues I have problems with concerning the way in which men (and by default, boys) have been depicted in the last twenty or more years at least. It has become fashionable to always show the males in any advert, TV show or film as being slightly less intelligent than the female leads. Advertisers often show men as being either stupid or one step removed from the stone age. Personally I don't find Homer Simpson funny, he's a stereotype, he's stupid and, frankly, revolting. His son is no more appealing, a smart-ass, crude, ill-mannered and well deserving a good thumping.
Yes, there are men like Homer, and far too many kids like Bart, but they are not as numerous as the TV, films or advertisers would have us believe. These negative images of men extend into a wide range of other fields as well. Men are typically presented as sexual predators and children are taught not to respect or trust just about everyone by the constant stream of advertising to promote child safety. In part this has arisen in order the advance the equality of women in the workplace and public life, but I suspect it has now gone far too far. There is a danger there as well, one the promoters of this image of men as violent, weak, machoistic, mysoginists would do well to remember. It was said to me many years ago during a discussion over a problem with an individual who always tried to detract from anyone else's achievement. What you take from another by slander, you take twice from yourself in respect.
How do we expect boys to grow up with real values if they are taught their father's are basically just better spoken/educated/looking variants of Homer Simpson? How do we expect them to develop real values when they are told they are no better? What do we expect of them when their "heroes" are foul-mouthed footballers, or drug taking Pop stars? No wonder other societies and cultures are beginning to laugh at us.
We are all human, we all have flaws and failings, but not all men are stupid, not all men are sexual predators, not all men are mysoginists. You may argue that men have it coming as the Guardian article suggests (I disagree - but you'd expect that), but that simply expressing a modern prejudice in politically correct language. Why should a boy be made to feel he is inferior? Why should he be made to learn in a system designed entirely to favour the learning style of girls? That is what the comprehensive system of education has become. Yes, some boys do cope with it, but the majority don't. That is a fact shown by scientific studies, but ignored because it doesn't fit with the ideological dictat that says girls and women must be given the advantage.
You cannot take something away from one person to improve the lot of another without damaging both by so doing. The one will resent being impoverished by being disadvantaged, the other will assume it is a right, and cease to appreciate the effort necessary to attain the full benefit. Both, in the end, will be brought into conflict. When a well qualified young man can turn around and tell someone he doesn't expect to get promotion in his career because of his gender, his skin colour and his religious affiliation you know that the situation is becoming serious.
It is time to call a halt to the presentation of males in general as stupid, boorish and incompetent. They don't deserve it, and ultimately everyone will lose by it.
Yes, there are men like Homer, and far too many kids like Bart, but they are not as numerous as the TV, films or advertisers would have us believe. These negative images of men extend into a wide range of other fields as well. Men are typically presented as sexual predators and children are taught not to respect or trust just about everyone by the constant stream of advertising to promote child safety. In part this has arisen in order the advance the equality of women in the workplace and public life, but I suspect it has now gone far too far. There is a danger there as well, one the promoters of this image of men as violent, weak, machoistic, mysoginists would do well to remember. It was said to me many years ago during a discussion over a problem with an individual who always tried to detract from anyone else's achievement. What you take from another by slander, you take twice from yourself in respect.
How do we expect boys to grow up with real values if they are taught their father's are basically just better spoken/educated/looking variants of Homer Simpson? How do we expect them to develop real values when they are told they are no better? What do we expect of them when their "heroes" are foul-mouthed footballers, or drug taking Pop stars? No wonder other societies and cultures are beginning to laugh at us.
We are all human, we all have flaws and failings, but not all men are stupid, not all men are sexual predators, not all men are mysoginists. You may argue that men have it coming as the Guardian article suggests (I disagree - but you'd expect that), but that simply expressing a modern prejudice in politically correct language. Why should a boy be made to feel he is inferior? Why should he be made to learn in a system designed entirely to favour the learning style of girls? That is what the comprehensive system of education has become. Yes, some boys do cope with it, but the majority don't. That is a fact shown by scientific studies, but ignored because it doesn't fit with the ideological dictat that says girls and women must be given the advantage.
You cannot take something away from one person to improve the lot of another without damaging both by so doing. The one will resent being impoverished by being disadvantaged, the other will assume it is a right, and cease to appreciate the effort necessary to attain the full benefit. Both, in the end, will be brought into conflict. When a well qualified young man can turn around and tell someone he doesn't expect to get promotion in his career because of his gender, his skin colour and his religious affiliation you know that the situation is becoming serious.
It is time to call a halt to the presentation of males in general as stupid, boorish and incompetent. They don't deserve it, and ultimately everyone will lose by it.
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
Lobbying; Counter to democracy?
A debate ongoing in Germany (and long-running in the UK) concerns the influence exerted by lobby groups, often representing very small and narrow "special interests", have on government. The big question is, what does their influence really mean for democracy and the much vaunted "will of the people"? It is not a simple question for, as far as I can see from reading history, lobbying seems to have been a major part of the political system since mankind first started to organise their activities. Certainly, in the UK, arguably the oldest modern democracy, the power of various lobby groups and campaigners has always played a major role in government.
If one looks back to the Parliaments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (questionably democratic to be sure), one soon sees that the land-owning gentry and the anti-catholic religious factions had powerful lobbies in Parliament. Beginning in the late 18th Century, the agricultural community lobbied hard for protectionist laws which became known as the Corn Laws. These kept the price of all grain crops high, by the simple expedient of imposing prohibitive import taxes on cheaper wheat, barley and maize anyone attempted to import from elsewhere. Of course, that impacted on the price of the working people's staple food - bread - and that kept industrial wages high. The industrialists and the Middle Classes lobbied strenuously for the repeal of these laws, and the 'beneficiaries' lobbied as hard to keep them. It took a series of poor harvests and finally the tragedy of the Irish potato famine to get these (and one or two other bits of pure 'protectionism') repealed.
The unintended consequence of the repeal, however, was that while the prices fell initially, so did production. Farmers simply could not afford the wages for producing a, then, labour intensive crop. Within ten years Britain was importing over 50% of the 'Corn' (a generic term then used to describe all the grain crops) it consumed. Ironically that put many of the very people the repeal was supposed to help, out of work, house and community ... In fact, it sparked the major movement out of the rural areas and into the cities as unskilled farm hands tried to find alternative employment. It also triggered a major move toward the Trade Union movement.
Today most people don't realise that lobbying is a built-in part of the political system, and always has been. The Labour Party has its origins in the desire of the Trade Union movement to have access to the organs of power in Westminster. Many of its MPs are 'sponsored' by Trade Unions, some by more than one. The exact form of the sponsorship varies, of course, and is subject to the 'Rules of the House', but they are not alone in this. Almost all MPs are 'sponsored' by one group or another. The Chambers of Industries and Commerce, the Trades Unions, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Childline, the Society for the Protection of Children, English Heritage, National Trust, the RSPCA and many others are all involved in various levels of lobbying for whatever 'cause' they promote.
The question really is, just how much influence do they have on the plethora of laws, regulations and other 'policy' decisions made in Whitehall and Westminster? Do they, as some, like Greenpeace, often claim, represent the 'majority opinion' of the public? Or is that simply another claim that is likely to go unchallenged because there is no way to measure it accurately? Even the much vaunted 'ballot box' of an election is now suspect, since in the last quarter century, if not longer, turnout seems to have been shrinking. Blair's much trumpeted 'landslide' was not such a triumph when taken as a percentage of the potential vote. The 'turnout' was low, just clearing 51%, which means his 'share' of the vote was considerably lower than the published figure which ignored the absentees.
There does need to be some element of lobbying in our system. How else can the interests of small groups, or matters of narrow interest be driven through the monolithic egos and the sheer weight of bureaucratic inertia that is any government today? The problem, as I see it today, is the plethora of passionately driven campaigns run as 'single issues' and whose promoters often refuse to see the ramifications and implications of their desired outcome.
Reaching back into history, one can point to the Abolition of Slavery, a laudable intention on every level. The only problem being that the Abolitionists didn't take any account of what the freed slaves were going to do, where they would live, or how they would feed, clothe and keep themselves. That oversight has left a legacy that still bedevils many countries. So too with the Corn Laws, and one could point to many more recent well intentioned, but ultimately very damaging, 'successes' by lobbying groups, such as the 'fuel price escalator' which has driven up fuel prices, but not driven consumption down, and pushed up the prices of almost everything else because of the rising cost of transport.
It is easy to form the impression that our elected representatives in Parliament live in an environment now where they don't appreciate the difference between what 'The Party' and the various lobby groups who brief them say, and the reality of the lives of the people bearing the impact of all these wonderful ideas. I don't think we can change the nature of lobbying a great deal, but I think we can make it much more transparent and compel our MPs to acknowledge the very real problems they cause when they impose something a lobby group want. It will be an interesting debate - and I am not sure the solution will ever be found.
If one looks back to the Parliaments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (questionably democratic to be sure), one soon sees that the land-owning gentry and the anti-catholic religious factions had powerful lobbies in Parliament. Beginning in the late 18th Century, the agricultural community lobbied hard for protectionist laws which became known as the Corn Laws. These kept the price of all grain crops high, by the simple expedient of imposing prohibitive import taxes on cheaper wheat, barley and maize anyone attempted to import from elsewhere. Of course, that impacted on the price of the working people's staple food - bread - and that kept industrial wages high. The industrialists and the Middle Classes lobbied strenuously for the repeal of these laws, and the 'beneficiaries' lobbied as hard to keep them. It took a series of poor harvests and finally the tragedy of the Irish potato famine to get these (and one or two other bits of pure 'protectionism') repealed.
The unintended consequence of the repeal, however, was that while the prices fell initially, so did production. Farmers simply could not afford the wages for producing a, then, labour intensive crop. Within ten years Britain was importing over 50% of the 'Corn' (a generic term then used to describe all the grain crops) it consumed. Ironically that put many of the very people the repeal was supposed to help, out of work, house and community ... In fact, it sparked the major movement out of the rural areas and into the cities as unskilled farm hands tried to find alternative employment. It also triggered a major move toward the Trade Union movement.
Today most people don't realise that lobbying is a built-in part of the political system, and always has been. The Labour Party has its origins in the desire of the Trade Union movement to have access to the organs of power in Westminster. Many of its MPs are 'sponsored' by Trade Unions, some by more than one. The exact form of the sponsorship varies, of course, and is subject to the 'Rules of the House', but they are not alone in this. Almost all MPs are 'sponsored' by one group or another. The Chambers of Industries and Commerce, the Trades Unions, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Childline, the Society for the Protection of Children, English Heritage, National Trust, the RSPCA and many others are all involved in various levels of lobbying for whatever 'cause' they promote.
The question really is, just how much influence do they have on the plethora of laws, regulations and other 'policy' decisions made in Whitehall and Westminster? Do they, as some, like Greenpeace, often claim, represent the 'majority opinion' of the public? Or is that simply another claim that is likely to go unchallenged because there is no way to measure it accurately? Even the much vaunted 'ballot box' of an election is now suspect, since in the last quarter century, if not longer, turnout seems to have been shrinking. Blair's much trumpeted 'landslide' was not such a triumph when taken as a percentage of the potential vote. The 'turnout' was low, just clearing 51%, which means his 'share' of the vote was considerably lower than the published figure which ignored the absentees.
There does need to be some element of lobbying in our system. How else can the interests of small groups, or matters of narrow interest be driven through the monolithic egos and the sheer weight of bureaucratic inertia that is any government today? The problem, as I see it today, is the plethora of passionately driven campaigns run as 'single issues' and whose promoters often refuse to see the ramifications and implications of their desired outcome.
Reaching back into history, one can point to the Abolition of Slavery, a laudable intention on every level. The only problem being that the Abolitionists didn't take any account of what the freed slaves were going to do, where they would live, or how they would feed, clothe and keep themselves. That oversight has left a legacy that still bedevils many countries. So too with the Corn Laws, and one could point to many more recent well intentioned, but ultimately very damaging, 'successes' by lobbying groups, such as the 'fuel price escalator' which has driven up fuel prices, but not driven consumption down, and pushed up the prices of almost everything else because of the rising cost of transport.
It is easy to form the impression that our elected representatives in Parliament live in an environment now where they don't appreciate the difference between what 'The Party' and the various lobby groups who brief them say, and the reality of the lives of the people bearing the impact of all these wonderful ideas. I don't think we can change the nature of lobbying a great deal, but I think we can make it much more transparent and compel our MPs to acknowledge the very real problems they cause when they impose something a lobby group want. It will be an interesting debate - and I am not sure the solution will ever be found.
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
A Real Threat to Society?
Recently there has been a worrying development in the debate over the "science" of the "anthropomorphic climate change" argument. True Believers in the AGW narrative have long labelled those who dare to disagree with their "faith" and the Green agenda to de-industrialise and "de-carbonise" the US, UK and Europe, as "deniers" and trot out all manner of insulting and often completely misleading statements about "Big Oil" or "Big Coal" paying "contrarians" to challenge the "science" they believe is "settled" beyond all reasonable doubt.
The latest tactic is contained in this statement from one of the leading AGW promoters in the US -
No budding politician would dare to declare themselves "Christian" or that they don't believe in "Global Warming", or perhaps that "Multiculturalism" is a bad idea. Nor would they dare to opine that the "Green" energy policy currently being pursued by western governments is likely to lead to a major power shortage, or that de-industrialising will destroy our economic base. Already we can't criticise the mass immigration policies of the Left-Liberal governments anywhere, or the abusers of social security benefits. We cannot 'profile' anyone who might belong to a minority group known to be disposed toward crime, terrorism or anti-social behaviours. We cannot practice our Christian faith outside of church or home because it is "offensive" to atheists, Muslim extremists and secularists. As for criticising the extremists who want to blow western Christian-based cultures off the face of the earth ...
In my opinion, anyone in any position of authority or influence who makes a statement like that I quote above should be immediately removed from public office and forbidden from ever again holding one. Am I alone at finding it interesting that Left-Liberals like Mr Schatz are so quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as "Fascists"? Funny that, their own tactics, statements and actions are more akin to that brand of ideology than it is to the OED definition of a "liberal" ...
The latest tactic is contained in this statement from one of the leading AGW promoters in the US -
"You have to get to... where a major candidate for public office is disqualified when he or she denies climate science.” -- Brian SchatzI looked up who this man is, and found he is a career politician from Hawai, currently 'appointed' to the US Senate by the Governor of Hawai to fill a vacancy caused by the death of the elected incumbent. He was, until this 'promotion' a Congressman in the State Legislature and Lt. Governor. We should all be extremely concerned by statements like this, made by people like Mr Schatz. It reveals a great deal about how the "Liberal-Left" view freedom of speech and a raft of toher hard-won rights and freedoms our fathers, grandfathers, their spouses and many more of our forefathers fought for. It is only one step away from declaring that any statement the politically correct deem unacceptable is a criminal offence. The first step in rescinding our right to dissent on a raft of things. Oh, wait, we already have that situation already.
No budding politician would dare to declare themselves "Christian" or that they don't believe in "Global Warming", or perhaps that "Multiculturalism" is a bad idea. Nor would they dare to opine that the "Green" energy policy currently being pursued by western governments is likely to lead to a major power shortage, or that de-industrialising will destroy our economic base. Already we can't criticise the mass immigration policies of the Left-Liberal governments anywhere, or the abusers of social security benefits. We cannot 'profile' anyone who might belong to a minority group known to be disposed toward crime, terrorism or anti-social behaviours. We cannot practice our Christian faith outside of church or home because it is "offensive" to atheists, Muslim extremists and secularists. As for criticising the extremists who want to blow western Christian-based cultures off the face of the earth ...
In my opinion, anyone in any position of authority or influence who makes a statement like that I quote above should be immediately removed from public office and forbidden from ever again holding one. Am I alone at finding it interesting that Left-Liberals like Mr Schatz are so quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as "Fascists"? Funny that, their own tactics, statements and actions are more akin to that brand of ideology than it is to the OED definition of a "liberal" ...
Monday, 24 June 2013
Dangerous Dogs; or Dangerous Mis-use of the Law?
I have been following, with some astonishment, a case in the US concerning a Sheltie. The dog, a seven year old, is condemned to death for biting the 2 year old grand-daughter of his owner. Jack the Sheltie has no previous record of biting anyone, in fact the little girl involved adores him and still, apparently, wants to know when she can see him. But the City of New Hartford, NYC, Prosecutor and the Judge who heard the case declared him to be a "dangerous dog" at a five minute hearing. No "evidence" was led and the Judge, an 84 year old with no legal background as an attorney, has a somewhat chequered history of not following correct procedure.
In an article in the North Country Gazette, titled "Jack the Sheltie fighting kill order by Judge, 84", makes interesting reading, since, if the report is correct in the details, the city Dog Control Officer who first impounded Jack failed to follow correct procedure as laid down in the State Law on Dangerous Dogs. This seems to have been compounded by the Prosecutor and the Judge, neither of whom have followed the procedures. In fact, from this and other reports I have read, I am left with the overriding impression that the Judge couldn't be bothered with hearing the facts and simply endorsed the Prosecutors request for the dog to be killed.
Since Harry vom Goldbachmoor came to live with us seven months ago I have learned a lot about this breed, and one thing they are not, is 'snappy'. As I have written here before this, they are intelligent, very quick to learn and very, very loyal and loving. We had Harry at a party on Friday night, where there were several strange small children present. One infant in particular was clearly unfamiliar with dogs of any sort, screeching every time Harry approached. His response was sensible, he retreated, found a 'safe' place beneath the table, and watched. Another child, about 3 in age, decided to invite him to play with her. At first he was cautious, then interested, but when she became to boisterous, again retreated. My observation of all the other Shelties we've met since Harry joined our household, display exactly the same characteristics.
Like any dog they will, if provoked, defend themselves, but they do not launch unprovoked attacks on people or children. So why is this city official, the City Prosecutor, and this 84 year old judge so determined to declare this Sheltie, "dangerous"? On the one hand I suspect it may be to cover the fact they have failed to follow the legal procedures, on the other, it may be that it is part of a wider pattern of abuse of authority by city officials. At risk of upsetting many of my US friends, it is one reason many of us non-US citizens have little faith in the US Justice system. Our own is not perfect by any manner of means, but many of the things a US Court will accept in procedures are strictly forbidden in the UK and Europe. Following the laid down procedure of advising a person of their rights and options is one. Jack the Sheltie's owners were not advised of theirs. Add to that the fact the Dog Control Officer involved brought the prosecution when no member of the family involved had asked anyone to do so - let alone him. Clearly both he and the Prosecutor have 'exceeded their authority' in this.
Nor does this appear to be an isolated case. In recent months I have seen a number of appeals for help in combating "kill orders" handed down by city officials for "dangerous dogs", and while some may well have been large and uncontrolled, many had committed no "violent" act against anyone. One was even executed while awaiting an appeal hearing. Nor is it confined to the US, similar laws and proceedings have been adopted by municipalities and officials in some Australian States. In almost all cases there is an element of "exceeding authority" or "abuse" of authority.
As a former 'official' working within a legal framework, this is something we always had to be especially careful of not doing. The UK courts, and the South African ones I first worked with, take an extremely dim view of any official "exceeding his/her authority" on anything. Heaven help an officer who found himself admitting under cross-examination that he/she had not followed the strict procedural rules set out in the legislation or any restriction on his/her powers!
Now a new court hearing has been scheduled for the 28th June, 2013. Jack has been in custody, on Death Row, for more than 80 days. During all this time he has not shown any aggressive tendency, and when his 'family' visit is overjoyed, clearly not understanding why he can't go home. However, the Prosecutor involved is adamant he is "dangerous" and declares that the only thing the new hearing may determine is whether or not the 84 year old local "judge" followed the correct procedure. Anywhere else I would lay money on the new judge overturning the earlier verdict and censuring the earlier judge and the prosecutor, not to mention the Dog Control Officer who started the entire farce. But, this being the US, I'm not that confident.
I invite all my readers to visit this page on FaceBook and show your support for Jack the Sheltie before he becomes just another statistic of the well intentioned, but often badly written, ill-applied and abused laws intended to protect us from the really savage and badly controlled dogs that are "out there". No one with any knowledge of Shelties, or indeed, anyone who, as a responsible owner, has had a dog would class them as "dangerous".
In an article in the North Country Gazette, titled "Jack the Sheltie fighting kill order by Judge, 84", makes interesting reading, since, if the report is correct in the details, the city Dog Control Officer who first impounded Jack failed to follow correct procedure as laid down in the State Law on Dangerous Dogs. This seems to have been compounded by the Prosecutor and the Judge, neither of whom have followed the procedures. In fact, from this and other reports I have read, I am left with the overriding impression that the Judge couldn't be bothered with hearing the facts and simply endorsed the Prosecutors request for the dog to be killed.
Since Harry vom Goldbachmoor came to live with us seven months ago I have learned a lot about this breed, and one thing they are not, is 'snappy'. As I have written here before this, they are intelligent, very quick to learn and very, very loyal and loving. We had Harry at a party on Friday night, where there were several strange small children present. One infant in particular was clearly unfamiliar with dogs of any sort, screeching every time Harry approached. His response was sensible, he retreated, found a 'safe' place beneath the table, and watched. Another child, about 3 in age, decided to invite him to play with her. At first he was cautious, then interested, but when she became to boisterous, again retreated. My observation of all the other Shelties we've met since Harry joined our household, display exactly the same characteristics.
Like any dog they will, if provoked, defend themselves, but they do not launch unprovoked attacks on people or children. So why is this city official, the City Prosecutor, and this 84 year old judge so determined to declare this Sheltie, "dangerous"? On the one hand I suspect it may be to cover the fact they have failed to follow the legal procedures, on the other, it may be that it is part of a wider pattern of abuse of authority by city officials. At risk of upsetting many of my US friends, it is one reason many of us non-US citizens have little faith in the US Justice system. Our own is not perfect by any manner of means, but many of the things a US Court will accept in procedures are strictly forbidden in the UK and Europe. Following the laid down procedure of advising a person of their rights and options is one. Jack the Sheltie's owners were not advised of theirs. Add to that the fact the Dog Control Officer involved brought the prosecution when no member of the family involved had asked anyone to do so - let alone him. Clearly both he and the Prosecutor have 'exceeded their authority' in this.
Nor does this appear to be an isolated case. In recent months I have seen a number of appeals for help in combating "kill orders" handed down by city officials for "dangerous dogs", and while some may well have been large and uncontrolled, many had committed no "violent" act against anyone. One was even executed while awaiting an appeal hearing. Nor is it confined to the US, similar laws and proceedings have been adopted by municipalities and officials in some Australian States. In almost all cases there is an element of "exceeding authority" or "abuse" of authority.
As a former 'official' working within a legal framework, this is something we always had to be especially careful of not doing. The UK courts, and the South African ones I first worked with, take an extremely dim view of any official "exceeding his/her authority" on anything. Heaven help an officer who found himself admitting under cross-examination that he/she had not followed the strict procedural rules set out in the legislation or any restriction on his/her powers!
Now a new court hearing has been scheduled for the 28th June, 2013. Jack has been in custody, on Death Row, for more than 80 days. During all this time he has not shown any aggressive tendency, and when his 'family' visit is overjoyed, clearly not understanding why he can't go home. However, the Prosecutor involved is adamant he is "dangerous" and declares that the only thing the new hearing may determine is whether or not the 84 year old local "judge" followed the correct procedure. Anywhere else I would lay money on the new judge overturning the earlier verdict and censuring the earlier judge and the prosecutor, not to mention the Dog Control Officer who started the entire farce. But, this being the US, I'm not that confident.
I invite all my readers to visit this page on FaceBook and show your support for Jack the Sheltie before he becomes just another statistic of the well intentioned, but often badly written, ill-applied and abused laws intended to protect us from the really savage and badly controlled dogs that are "out there". No one with any knowledge of Shelties, or indeed, anyone who, as a responsible owner, has had a dog would class them as "dangerous".
Friday, 21 June 2013
The Impact of PR on Debate ...
This morning I picked up a link from Discover Magazine and an article by Christie Wilcox who points to the fact that often people refuse to accept evidence which conflicts with their own agenda, ideology or concept of how things 'should be'. To a very large extent this, she says, is down to NGOs and others going beyond 'raising concerns' and actively promoting 'non-science' or flawed science set out in non-peer reviewed papers, or which is concocted from deeply flawed work which does not meet scientific criteria. Two quotes from her article highlight the problem -
In my career one of the most important lessons I learned (the hard way sometimes) was NEVER investigate something with an idea of what might have caused it or happened. You will always be blinded by what is known as 'expectation bias' and will see only the answers you wish to see. All too often it is the un-scientific 'public relations' version of facts, more 'intuit' than real, that gets into the public mindset. And once there, it is, for around 50% of the population, almost impossible to correct it. Perfect example, mentioned in Ms Wilcox's article, the link between autism and vaccines. Now proved to be false, there are still a large number of people who swear the scientists are wrong and refuse to allow their children to vaccinated. Even the doctor who started that load of garbage having been struck off the medical register doesn't stoop their campaigning. Now he's a 'martyr' to their 'truth'.
It can be seen in all the debates surrounding Climate Change. No reasonable person actually denies that the climate is changing in some ways, what an increasing number do doubt is that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the WWF, Government or anyone else actually knows the cause. Most of the supposition is founded on computer modelling and most of the data they use has been 'smoothed', 'adjusted' and even 'invented' based on very small samples of tree rings, bark or sediments from lakes. No amount of protest from some of those whose work has been subsumed and sometimes blatantly misused seems to make any difference to the campaigners - who accuse anyone who dares to challenge their 'evidence' of being in the pay of 'Big Oil'. If only! The truth is that much of what these 'intuitive' campaigners want is to turn back the clock to some idyllic past moment with fewer people, 'natural' food, less industry and less commerce. Bad news folks, it never existed. Second bit of bad news, there is no way us switching off all electrical power in Europe and North America, will make one jot of difference to the climate.
Apart from all our cities collapsing in ruins and those of us who have the skills or the means, will be forced to become scavengers and hunter gatherers - probably destroying anything that was left in the process.
There are a lot of scientists who point to these models and show how they ignore a range of past events, because the data has been 'smoothed' out or simply not included. Like the Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland could support cattle. I was reminded of that by the following note in a piece offering a series of lectures on history -
Kara Moses asked Guardian readers: “Should we wait for conclusive scientific studies before becoming concerned about an issue?” Her personal answer was no; that special interest groups should perform and publicize their own findings. “I believe they should be given a voice,” she concluded, “not dismissed out of hand for lacking the scientific rigour demanded by professional scientists.”Quick to support her was Treehugger writer Chris Tackett. “The point here is that scientific proof matters in science, but it shouldn’t necessarily be what determines our actions,” he wrote. “We can intuit that some things are unwise or dangerous or against our values without needing reams of scientific data to back up our concerns.” While Kara’s piece talked only about the use of glyphosate (the pesticide known by its brand name RoundUp), Chris used it to attack both the pesticide’s use and Monsanto GM crops.I disagree with both. All too often it is these half-baked and often deeply flawed and WRONG so-called 'studies' that the mass media make a huge storm around, scare the gullible into all manner of silly 'health' concerns, and then fail to publish any sort of convincing retraction when properly conducted studies expose the truth. By then, the damage is done. Writers like Chris Tackett refuse to accept scientific evidence which does not fit their 'intuitive' position which is that all pesticides are bad and all GM crops are bad. Any evidence to the contrary is immediately labelled as 'lies paid for by Big Pharma' or by 'Big Oil' if it's anything to do with the environment or the climate.
In my career one of the most important lessons I learned (the hard way sometimes) was NEVER investigate something with an idea of what might have caused it or happened. You will always be blinded by what is known as 'expectation bias' and will see only the answers you wish to see. All too often it is the un-scientific 'public relations' version of facts, more 'intuit' than real, that gets into the public mindset. And once there, it is, for around 50% of the population, almost impossible to correct it. Perfect example, mentioned in Ms Wilcox's article, the link between autism and vaccines. Now proved to be false, there are still a large number of people who swear the scientists are wrong and refuse to allow their children to vaccinated. Even the doctor who started that load of garbage having been struck off the medical register doesn't stoop their campaigning. Now he's a 'martyr' to their 'truth'.
It can be seen in all the debates surrounding Climate Change. No reasonable person actually denies that the climate is changing in some ways, what an increasing number do doubt is that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the WWF, Government or anyone else actually knows the cause. Most of the supposition is founded on computer modelling and most of the data they use has been 'smoothed', 'adjusted' and even 'invented' based on very small samples of tree rings, bark or sediments from lakes. No amount of protest from some of those whose work has been subsumed and sometimes blatantly misused seems to make any difference to the campaigners - who accuse anyone who dares to challenge their 'evidence' of being in the pay of 'Big Oil'. If only! The truth is that much of what these 'intuitive' campaigners want is to turn back the clock to some idyllic past moment with fewer people, 'natural' food, less industry and less commerce. Bad news folks, it never existed. Second bit of bad news, there is no way us switching off all electrical power in Europe and North America, will make one jot of difference to the climate.
Apart from all our cities collapsing in ruins and those of us who have the skills or the means, will be forced to become scavengers and hunter gatherers - probably destroying anything that was left in the process.
There are a lot of scientists who point to these models and show how they ignore a range of past events, because the data has been 'smoothed' out or simply not included. Like the Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland could support cattle. I was reminded of that by the following note in a piece offering a series of lectures on history -
"2. Climatic Changes: The population situation came at a most unfortunate time, since, almost at the same time, the climate of Europe suddenly turned colder and wetter. Indeed, some historians believe that Europe may have entered a "mini Ice Age" in the 14th century, as evidenced by the heavy clothing depicted on portraiture of the time and later. These climatic changes meant crop failures. Crops either froze in the fields or else were subject to rot in the granaries from the dampness of incessant rains."
As Josephus, who sent it to me commented ...
Obviously, this was anthropomorphically induced by Marco Polo's international travel and the Hordes of Genghis Khan irresponsibly allowing their Yaks to fart in Europe.As the quote above suggests, Europe suffered badly when the climate swung back to 'colder' because they had no means of adapting rapidly to it. I would suggest that instead of trying to 'control' our climate we need to look at adaptation tactics. Instead of trying to outlaw fuel, heating, transport, industry and commerce, we should be finding ways to make it and all our other activities more adaptable and much more environmentally friendly. I have yet to meet a dedicated 'Green' of any persuasion who was able to make any practical suggestion for providing reliable, stable energy, reliable supplies of food and clean water or anything else. The mindset revolves around a fantasy of cottage industry, self-help and 'communal effort'. None of which is in any way realistic.
No, it is most certainly NOT a good idea for NGOs like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF to launch what amount to publicity campaigns based in their own, frequently biased, and often unscientific 'research'. At best it does nothing but alarm some sections of the populace, and at worst, it leads to campaigns which drive policy into dead-end directions and perverts scientific study. That is what is wrong at present with the entire Climate Change debate as I was reminded again yesterday when reading the latest copy of Scientific American. The piece on the Tar Sands in Canada is a classic of 'intuition' versus science. The writer doesn't like oil, doesn't want oil, hates the industry - so the scientific studies are dismissed.
No, the so-called campaigning NGOs do not have the right to trumpet abroad their 'intuited' fear campaigns. Anything they wish to promote as 'science' should and MUST be subjected to the same rigours as every other scientific study.
Thursday, 20 June 2013
Environment, Climate and other confusions ...
I'm currently being bombarded by appeals to join this or that campaign to "protect the environment" or "stop climate change" and several other related matters. It seems to me that there is a lot of conflation of issues in these, between 'saving pandas, polar bears, oranutangs' and 'stopping climate change' there is a lot of pressure to 'do' some world saving thing - with generally pretty dangerous consequences for commerce, industry and humanity. This was certainly the impression I got reading the Hansard for a debate on the Energy Bill in the House of Lords yesterday. Lord Greenway, an Independent Peer who sits on the Cross Benches and takes a strong interest in all matters maritime, made some excellent points on the issues surrounding the debate on 'power generation'. One of his points leapt out at me, concerning the building of 'wind farms' in offshore locations which straddle shipping lanes. As he says, it is only a matter of time really before someone manages to ram a ship or two into one.
Hard on the heels of this I was reading of the debate held by the UK Met Office on the subject of why there has been "no warming/why are we having such strange seasons/weather" which their models didn't predict. There seems to have been - if the Telegraph blog has it right - a lot of opinions about whether it will first get colder, or hotter, or both, and where that leaves the Human Race, but not a lot of 'consensus'. No one seems to have mentioned the oceanic oscillations, or the fact that the North Atlantic Oscillation has 'lingered' (or perhaps malingered) rather further west this year than it has done for at least the last forty. Or that the Pacific Ocean equivalent has done the same thing. Nor does there appear to have been any mention of the fact the La Nina - the opposite of an El Nino - has persisted in the Pacific. In fact, in the last sixteen years there have been more La Ninas than El Ninos, and La Nina always brings more rain to the US West Coast and more snow. As ever, the focus in the Met Office discussion seems, yet again, to have revolved around the 'it's all to do with CO2 and Humans are causing it'.
Their 'models' say so. Or something.
Today I received my latest issue of Scientific American. Sometimes I feel the title has become something of an oxymoron. The main article in this one is all about how the development of the Tar Sands oil extraction in Canada will bring the planet to and beyond the 'carbon' tipping point. Lot's of 'big' numbers are thrown around about how sensitive the climate is to all the 'carbon' released in the recovery, how the environment is being destroyed and how the 'extra' CO2 will push the climate past the 2°C limit the IPCC has decreed will cause the mass extinction of humans, animals, birds and fish.
Which brings me back to the House of Lords and the debate there on the Energy Bill. At last it seems they are acknowledging that the drive to get rid of nuclear and cut out coal and hydro-carbon fuelled generation will result in a massive shortfall in demand. But there seems to be a complete absence of common sense when it comes to addressing it. As Lord Greenway says, we should have invested properly and fully in nuclear, now is probably too little, and far too late. Wind and wave generation isn't going to cut it, nor is solar except in a very localised and limited way. The government's 'big' idea is to encourage people to use less ...
Oh dear, oh dear. So switching a few light bulbs to LEDs, turning off some of our appliances, not using others is going to 'save' enough to compensate for the electric cars, large numbers of electric trains and perhaps 'trackless trams' (old fashioned 'trolley' buses running off overhead wires like a tram) and the 'growth' in industry and commerce every economist is screaming for. Somehow I doubt it. Like Lord Greenway I cannot see anyone actually building and maintaining a viable 'floating wind turbine generator or a wave powered one. Atlantic winter storms will soon wreck those, not to mention having the odd fishing trawler or bulk carrier get tangled up in one.
It is time to recognise two important facts here. First, we cannot 'control' the climate. Nothing we do can halt any natural cycle or change the way the jet streams (major players in weather but which are not included in the infamous 'models' used by the Met Office apparently) decide to go. That is determined by the oceanic oscillations and not by 'carbon', towns, cities, motorways or little green men. While I am all for a cleaner and greener environment (it's much better for my health after all!), I get very annoyed by people who push schemes which do not take in all the implications and impacts of whatever is the flavour of their month.
Second, if we are going to face a warmer planet, and I think that ultimately we might (if it doesn't plunge into an Ice Age first - which is equally possible if one takes account of paleolithic evidence the Global Warming' lobby ignore), it will not be the first time mankind has endured warmer climates. Both the Roman period and the early Medieval (900 - 1200 AD) saw much warmer conditions in Europe and Greenland than we have now. It would therefore seem sensible to adopt those measures which clean up our act, and make our commerce and industry less damaging (remembering, of course, that the 'West' is now only about 12% of the Global population so our actual impact is far smaller than Greenpeace et all like to make out), and adapt our societies, our habitats and our use of resources to better manage.
Finally, I do believe it would be far better all round if the Media, the Public Relations industry, the politicians and - yes - some of the 'scientists' chasing 'research' funding shut up. There is now so much misinformation being bandied about (in the Lords, that prime example of a politician who should never be allowed to open his mouth and utter an opinion, Lord Prescott, trotted out the inevitable and long discredited 97% of scientists agree Global Warming is manmade ...). I suspect the problem is that there are too many people around for whom the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is all too true.
We live in an age where there are vast amounts of information bombarding us daily, yet very, very few of us are actually able to assess it, process it it rationally and draw conclusions from it. For most, the headline in a daily paper is as far as they read on any major issue. The same goes with a lot of the scientific information on some very complex issues on a wide range of things. So for most people, their 'source' of information is an attention grabbing headline which 'explains' a complex issue in a way they can grasp, and gut reaction.
None of which is a good way to determine a course of action, or to decide how to meet the nations needs in the future. I suspect that it will not be long before those with any sense invest in a small but efficient portable generator to keep the essential items in their homes going during the coming blackouts. It's that, or find a way to return to living in small hill forts. Our current 'Green' driven crop of policy makers certainly aren't going to get it right.
Hard on the heels of this I was reading of the debate held by the UK Met Office on the subject of why there has been "no warming/why are we having such strange seasons/weather" which their models didn't predict. There seems to have been - if the Telegraph blog has it right - a lot of opinions about whether it will first get colder, or hotter, or both, and where that leaves the Human Race, but not a lot of 'consensus'. No one seems to have mentioned the oceanic oscillations, or the fact that the North Atlantic Oscillation has 'lingered' (or perhaps malingered) rather further west this year than it has done for at least the last forty. Or that the Pacific Ocean equivalent has done the same thing. Nor does there appear to have been any mention of the fact the La Nina - the opposite of an El Nino - has persisted in the Pacific. In fact, in the last sixteen years there have been more La Ninas than El Ninos, and La Nina always brings more rain to the US West Coast and more snow. As ever, the focus in the Met Office discussion seems, yet again, to have revolved around the 'it's all to do with CO2 and Humans are causing it'.
Their 'models' say so. Or something.
Today I received my latest issue of Scientific American. Sometimes I feel the title has become something of an oxymoron. The main article in this one is all about how the development of the Tar Sands oil extraction in Canada will bring the planet to and beyond the 'carbon' tipping point. Lot's of 'big' numbers are thrown around about how sensitive the climate is to all the 'carbon' released in the recovery, how the environment is being destroyed and how the 'extra' CO2 will push the climate past the 2°C limit the IPCC has decreed will cause the mass extinction of humans, animals, birds and fish.
Which brings me back to the House of Lords and the debate there on the Energy Bill. At last it seems they are acknowledging that the drive to get rid of nuclear and cut out coal and hydro-carbon fuelled generation will result in a massive shortfall in demand. But there seems to be a complete absence of common sense when it comes to addressing it. As Lord Greenway says, we should have invested properly and fully in nuclear, now is probably too little, and far too late. Wind and wave generation isn't going to cut it, nor is solar except in a very localised and limited way. The government's 'big' idea is to encourage people to use less ...
Oh dear, oh dear. So switching a few light bulbs to LEDs, turning off some of our appliances, not using others is going to 'save' enough to compensate for the electric cars, large numbers of electric trains and perhaps 'trackless trams' (old fashioned 'trolley' buses running off overhead wires like a tram) and the 'growth' in industry and commerce every economist is screaming for. Somehow I doubt it. Like Lord Greenway I cannot see anyone actually building and maintaining a viable 'floating wind turbine generator or a wave powered one. Atlantic winter storms will soon wreck those, not to mention having the odd fishing trawler or bulk carrier get tangled up in one.
It is time to recognise two important facts here. First, we cannot 'control' the climate. Nothing we do can halt any natural cycle or change the way the jet streams (major players in weather but which are not included in the infamous 'models' used by the Met Office apparently) decide to go. That is determined by the oceanic oscillations and not by 'carbon', towns, cities, motorways or little green men. While I am all for a cleaner and greener environment (it's much better for my health after all!), I get very annoyed by people who push schemes which do not take in all the implications and impacts of whatever is the flavour of their month.
Second, if we are going to face a warmer planet, and I think that ultimately we might (if it doesn't plunge into an Ice Age first - which is equally possible if one takes account of paleolithic evidence the Global Warming' lobby ignore), it will not be the first time mankind has endured warmer climates. Both the Roman period and the early Medieval (900 - 1200 AD) saw much warmer conditions in Europe and Greenland than we have now. It would therefore seem sensible to adopt those measures which clean up our act, and make our commerce and industry less damaging (remembering, of course, that the 'West' is now only about 12% of the Global population so our actual impact is far smaller than Greenpeace et all like to make out), and adapt our societies, our habitats and our use of resources to better manage.
Finally, I do believe it would be far better all round if the Media, the Public Relations industry, the politicians and - yes - some of the 'scientists' chasing 'research' funding shut up. There is now so much misinformation being bandied about (in the Lords, that prime example of a politician who should never be allowed to open his mouth and utter an opinion, Lord Prescott, trotted out the inevitable and long discredited 97% of scientists agree Global Warming is manmade ...). I suspect the problem is that there are too many people around for whom the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is all too true.
We live in an age where there are vast amounts of information bombarding us daily, yet very, very few of us are actually able to assess it, process it it rationally and draw conclusions from it. For most, the headline in a daily paper is as far as they read on any major issue. The same goes with a lot of the scientific information on some very complex issues on a wide range of things. So for most people, their 'source' of information is an attention grabbing headline which 'explains' a complex issue in a way they can grasp, and gut reaction.
None of which is a good way to determine a course of action, or to decide how to meet the nations needs in the future. I suspect that it will not be long before those with any sense invest in a small but efficient portable generator to keep the essential items in their homes going during the coming blackouts. It's that, or find a way to return to living in small hill forts. Our current 'Green' driven crop of policy makers certainly aren't going to get it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
