http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/top_ten/archive/ls_topten_archive2005/ls_topten_archive_20050725.shtml

Top Ten George W. Bush Solutions For Global Warming

10. NASA mission to turn down the sun's thermostat

9. Federal subsidies to boost production of Cool Ranch Doritos

8. Fast track Rumsfeld's "Colonize Neptune" proposal

7. Convene Blue-Ribbon Committee to explore innovative ways of ignoring the problem

6. Let Hillary worry about it when she takes over

5. I dunno -- tax cuts for the rich?

4. Give the boys at Halliburton 90-billion dollar contract to patch hole in ozone

3. Switch to celsius so scorching 98 becomes frosty 37

2. Keep plenty Bud on ice

1. Invade Antartica

The 2nd evg convened in Old St Mary's by Paters, Randers on
sexual deviance and the Eames report was billed as Science. It was
awful.

Val Grant, U of Ak psych dept:

I discovered dominant women more likely to bear sons.
Postulate extra testosterone in utero - either embryo's own or
maternal. Unproven. A rather unpopular view which I've had a hard
time expressing in jnls.

The gay community has had to make far more adjustments than
we have these past 4 decades.

Am Psych Assn defined homX path 1940; rescinded 1973.
1986 NZ decrim homX behaviour.
Slide of shrine - the Stonewall bar, invaded by police
27-6-69 (colour pic), some call start of gay pride, exuberance,
vitality, insisting not path nor evil.

1970-90 the world became largely persuaded homX not a disorder.
1980s AIDS.
Some brave scientists said maybe homX has biol basis. Simon
Le Gay _Science_ 1991 gay brain difference; he is probably gay.
Chandler Burr - I guess he's gay too - 'A Separate Creation'
describes Le Gay's measurements and adds some efforts to justify
beliefs. LeGay may not have been precisely right.

Dean Hamer [failed to suggest he too is homX] showed by a
beautiful method 64% of gay brothers share alleles on region Xq28".
Not so sure about his latest bk The God Gene.

I expected gays to welcome Hamer's genetic picture. But they
were forced into silence on it by Pat Robertson taunting 'gays will
go strongly pro-life' which was brutally logical & true.

Pre-implantation sexing feasible but banned in many
countries. May be used for selecting against homX or hetX if
identified by genetic analysis of cell from early embryo before
implantation.

_Nature_ 20-7-05: male-specific fruitfly protein FruM
correlated with sexual orientation as shown in mating behaviour.
{cue bonobos ... but Val missed this trick}

Ivanka Savic May 2005 [no jnl mentioned] MRI lights up in
part of all human brains examined when smell lavendar [sic] or cedar,
but only in hetX when smelling a testosterone-derived pheromone
[sic]. {at q time she added this work is v controversial, needs to
be repeated}

Burr analogises to LHedness.
John Manning finger lengths.
Otoacoustic emissions much more from les. Again postulate
prenatal androgens - foetal or maternal.

[No glimmer of correlation v. causation and if the latter in
which direction.]
>1, probably 4 or 5 genes or parts thereof.
Fraternal birth order strongly correl homX but not les.
Likely maternal but not understood.

Identical twins nearly 50% [number and terms vague].
Nobody hs found any social causes of homX.
The weight of scientific evidence is for a biological origin of homX.
Childhood gender nonconformity e.g boy playing with dolls as
if a girl [signif unstated].

Fa'afafine accepted e.g {pic} Linda E interview on web he/she
If we recognise orientation early and cater to it, it will
make for a very interesting society.
Approx 7% homX
How so const across time & cultures if genetic but don't
breed? [she didn't have the sense to allege teratogenesis, even tho'
it's her own favourite theory]
[prolonged applause]

Jonathan McKeown-Green, U of Ak philos dept:
Taking the science as Val states it, what are its ethical
implications? Nil.
{he said this over & over in different wording}

Not only science but also scripture, experiences of deviants,
power structures, promptings from the Holy Spirit.

Bible not clear on it.
Science doesn't have a casting vote.
We now think Newton's Laws of motion are wrong.
The key conjecture of science is tha A LOT of male homX is
genetic, and far less is upbringing. Sexual orientation not much
chosen or changeable.

But future tech could allow change. {speculated variously}
Science says genetics calls the shots.
But this is only a description.
Science can't tell us whether it's good or bad.
Paedophilic acts often regarded as immoral; but inevitable.
Value, worth, accepability not implied by inevitability.
Traits deemed bad if lead to pain, harm etc.
GM could be used to choose or manipulate sexuality.
[even longer applause]

In the q time at end, an endocrinologist from the dept of med
asked condordance of homX in identical twins raised apart. Grant
said she'd found no paper on that.

I stated my name and claimed to be a scientist of various
sorts. I commended the Whiteheads' bk My Genes Made Me Do It. Had
to contradict, from that book, Grant's claim 7 % homX - it's an
order of magnitude less (and bisexual men treble that prevalence,
which is an under-rated threat to public health). Congenital
(genetic or teratogenic) causes of homX orientation are minor -
it's mostly learned. You've got to be taught - but unfortunately
it's easy to teach. The news is far more cheerful than the
congenital doom picture - it is largely a matter of will. But this
does not mean it's easy to change. The Whiteheads have been
conducting for a dozen years a ministry for those who want to get out
of the homX or les subcultures. Their book gives the correct
science.

I think my voice sounded emotional, as I was feeling
quite disturbed at the systematic misrepresentations by Grant and
insulting time-wasting by Green.

Rev Bob 'The J'ville Kid' Scott asked that Te Plane Paa &
Paters state next week what role had been played in the Eames
commisison by the picture as presented by Grant & Green.

Discussion of the Eames report is not being informed by
science but by misrepresentation. The picture by Grant is grossly
misleading. She thinks she's helping a victimised minority, but as I
briefly remarked she isn't.

Blackberry Fungus Enters U.S., Hits Oregon

A deadly fungus used to control the spread of unwanted varieties of blackberries overseas has landed in the United States, infecting numerous fields in Oregon, the capital of America's blackberry industry.

---

I've not noticed gene-jockeys claiming the properties of GMOs are *more* predictable than those of normal organisms. If invasions such as that reported above can occur - and many have - with normal organisms, it is practically inevitable that GMOs will manifest even less foreseeable behaviour.

R

Blackberry Fungus Enters U.S., Hits Oregon

July 26, 2005 — By Rukmini Callimachi, Associated Press
PORTLAND, Ore. — A deadly fungus used to control the spread of unwanted varieties of blackberries overseas has landed in the United States, infecting numerous fields in Oregon, the capital of America's blackberry industry.

First spotted this spring on the southern Oregon Coast, the rust fungus has spread to seven counties, according to officials with the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

Initially, the species was only spotted on the Himalayan blackberry, a weed.

Now it's also been reported in virtually all of the fields of the commercially grown evergreen blackberry, the No. 2 blackberry crop in Oregon, accounting for roughly 9 percent of the state's $30 million blackberry industry.

The fungus -- which prior to its appearance in Oregon had never been detected in North America -- has not attacked the Marionberry, Oregon's state berry and one of the region's most lucrative berry crops, said Bruce Pokarney, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

Officials said it was too early to estimate the potential economic damage.

"We're at an early stage with the potential for serious economic damage, but we're not at the stage where that serious damage has happened," said Tom Peerbolt, a researcher with the Oregon Raspberry and Blackberry Commission.

The fungus has been used since at least the 1990s as a biocontrol agent to tame the growth of wild blackberries in Australia, New Zealand and Chile. As recently as last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approached blackberry growers in Oregon to discuss the possibility of introducing the fungus in the United States to control invasive varieties of blackberries -- but the plan did not move beyond the discussion stage, said Pokarney.

Ken Johnson, a professor of botany and plant pathology at Oregon State University, theorizes that because the evergreen blackberry -- which is not grown commercially in those countries -- is native to North America, it might be more susceptible to the foreign pathogen.

While all the evergreen blackberry fields appear to have been infected in Oregon, so far only one grower has reported losing his entire crop.

"It's appeared in all the Oregon evergreen fields, but it is not at the stage where it is causing real damage, except at this one site. Meaning we can find it, it's on the leaves, but the crop is still intact," said Peerbolt.

Agriculture officials are meeting this week to begin discussing possible remedies.

"The remedy is expensive -- spraying," said Johnson.

"It's a huge problem because it's something that can be battled and fought, but it takes a pretty rigorous spray program to do that," said Mark Hurst, owner of Hurst's Berry Farm in Sheridan.

While the disease has so far only been confirmed in Oregon, scientists and growers say it's already crossed into southwestern Washington, where samples taken from several fields are currently being tested for the fungus.

Once infected, the leaves of the blackberry bush become stained with a mosaic of purple spots. Underneath, the foliage is tainted with yellow pustules.

"It was brought to my attention today," said Dan Tsugawa, an employee at his father's Tsugawa Farms in Woodland, Wash. "It's so prolific that my workers have come out covered in yellow dust."

Source: Associated Press

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_31/b3945092_mz018.htm

AUGUST 1, 2005

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Online Extra: The Side Effects of Drugged Crops

The Union of Concerned Scientists' Dr Margaret Mellon explains the group's
concerns about the dangers genetically altered food poses

Q: Is the Union of Concerned Scientists opposed to genetically
engineering plants to produce human drugs?

A: We're not opposed across the board. It's a technology that should be
examined. And we're enthusiastic about using genetic engineering for
drug production. We're not so enthusiastic about outdoor applications of
genetic engineering to crops.

Q: What exactly is your concern?

A: When you're genetically engineering bioactive molecules -- drugs --
into crops and they're growing outdoors, you must be able to assure
those [engineered traits] don't move to food crops. Otherwise you're
imposing health and environmental risks.

Q: How might this affect trade with foreign countries?

A: Genetically engineered crops have uneven acceptance around the world.
Some people don't want any genetic engineering in their food. If they
found drugs in commodity crops, there would be a huge international
brouhaha. People around the world have choices -- they don't have to buy
from the U.S.

Q: Right now, the U.S. Agriculture Dept. oversees the growing of plants
for pharmaceutical production. What are some of the questions that you
think need to be answered when it comes to regulatory oversight?

A: We need to look at the ways both the USDA and the Food & Drug
Administration are involved. The FDA has authority to oversee drug
production. The question is: When does drug production begin here? Is it
when the genetically engineered crop is delivered to the biotech
manufacturing facility? Or should the FDA's authority extend into the
field?

The FDA needs to get new authority from Congress to allow them to
regulate genetically engineered organisms. There needs to be a
pre-commercial review of the risks inherent in this type of production.

Q: Some companies are developing animals -- such as goats and cows --
that might be able to produce human drugs in their milk. Why hasn't that
stirred up the same amount of controversy as drug-producing plants have?

A: The chances of a [captive] goat passing along a drug-producing gene
to a wild goat aren't very high. But even there, there are concerns.

We have to make sure the drugs don't carry viruses or other infectious
agents. We have to make sure we're not impeding the health and
well-being of the animals. And there could be problems with human error
-- someone selling one of these animals into the food supply, for
example.

Q: It sounds like you're calling for big changes at the federal level.

A: The process we have now just isn't going to do it. People are nervous
about genetic engineering. This is not a trivial issue.

Could be of some use as a joke within a talk - such as are almost _de rigeur_ these days ...

Two South Texas farmers, Jim and Bob, are sitting at their favourite bar
drinking beer. Jim turns to Bob and says, "You know, I'm tired of going
through life without an education. Tomorrow I think I'll go to the
Community College and sign up for some classes."

Bob thinks it's a good idea, and the two leave.

The next day Jim goes down to the college and meets the dean of
admissions, who signs him up for the four basic classes:

Math, English, History, and Logic.

"Logic?" Jim says. "What's that?"

The dean says, "I'll show you. Do you own a weed eater?"

"Yeah."

"Then logically because you own a weed eater, I think that you would have a
yard."

"That's true, I do have a yard."

"I'm not done," the dean says. "Because you have a yard, I think logically
that you would have a house."

"Yes, I do have a house."

"And because you have a house, I think that you might logically have a
family."

"I have a family."

"I'm not done yet. Because you have a family, then logically you must have
a wife."

"Yes, I do have a wife."

"And because you have a wife, then logically you must be a heterosexual."

"I am a heterosexual. That's amazing, you were able to find out all of
that because I have a weed eater."

Excited to take the class now, Jim shakes the dean's hand and leaves to go
meet Bob at the bar.

He tells Bob about his classes, how he is signed up for math, English,
history, and logic.

"Logic?" Bob says, "What's that?"

Jim says, "I'll show you. Do you have a weed eater?"

"No."

"Then dammit, you're gay."

HarpAlert®: recent feminazism action
2005

A group formed a decade ago over a major
men's health issue. I joined early on as a life
member, and was soon startled to find the then
pres wouldn't agree to meet with me. Years
later, I offered to work on the cttee and was
elected at the AGM.

Current Mr Pres is a PR man. He moved at
the AGM to bring onto the cttee two young PR
women to fund-raise e.g from drug companies they
used to work for.

I asked to visit Mr Pres to discuss how I
might work under him. He acceded to a request
from another young PR woman who phoned in asking
to arrive a quarter-hour after I finally got to
talk with him. I emphasized the need for a
technical subcttee and offered to chair it. He
agreed.

My first cttee mtg (like most in this
organisation, a conference call) was more orderly
than I'd feared of that medium, but I was
surprised to hear Mr Pres ask for confirmation
that he too should be on the technical subcttee.
I heard nothing more of it.

One of the PR-women, Ms D, asked cttee
members by email for contacts with firms that
might help us financially. I sent her the name
of my wife's nephew, NZ chief of a successful
firm. Instead of looking up the firm's phone
number in the book, she demanded it of me. I
then looked it up for her but also commented:
>it has taken you more time & effort to insist
>that you should not look it up than actually to
>look it up yourself ... and you say you want
>to help us.
>What a world we now live in.

Mr Pres then emailed me that she had
taken offence, and he demanded that I apologise.
At no stage did he present me with a statement of
what should be apologised for. I told him of
course that it was she who had been uncooperative
in refusing to look up the firm's phone no. He
tried to avoid discussion with me of the alleged
offence, simply keeping on demanding, on behalf
of Ms D who'd not had to do any confrontation, an
apology to her. He finally slapped an ultimatum
on me so I had to spell out more clearly than
before my stand for justice.

Some features of this Ms D caper
illustrate widespread patterns in feminazi
actions:-
* Front-wimps are used wherever possible.
* Novel vague 'principles' of ethics & manners
are assumed - tho' never spelt out. Politeness
is thus furtively redefined, for the purpose of
* PC Commandment 9
>Pretend that political correctness is simply about politeness.
* While maintaining a pretence of scrupulous
concern for politeness, insults are issued at any
man who looks like doing good for men

The particular case may however be
unusual in some other respects. Abandonment of
normal manners, while claiming to be insisting on
'courtesy', is pretty radical, isn't it? In
particular, he implicitly, and explicitly,
insisted that the junior woman is equal to senior
men within the cttee.

Mr Pres staged a special nationwide
general mtg to form a new cttee without me.

A key disclosure was Mr Pres' saying (for
the first time, months after the events in
question) he'd been deeply disturbed by some of
my emails. This is a far more plausible reason
for his antagonism than any possible belief that
Ms D was offended. Probably what he alluded to
was my talk on Access Radio Auckland 8-12-97
which I copy here as I still think it's correct &
important. Mr Pres has not replied to requests
to say what has "deeply disturbed" him.

It would seem from these glimpses that
feminazis have been able to infiltrate & cripple
the nascent men's health movement.

Some evidence may be found in what
glimpses I got of Mr Pres's relationship with his
wife. I was visible outside the front door to
his wife who however didn't move to let me in -
he had to, after some delay, and to make the tea.
They have the same email address. My working
hypothesis is that he is a front-wimp for her.
He certainly is for young Ms D.

Importantly, we are reminded that the
viciously antisocial ideology WimminsLib, while
powered by man-hating lesbians, is mainly fronted
by wimps who act as a buffer zone doing the dirty
work for the feminazis.

R

===========

Access Radio Auckland 8-12-97

The Men's Hour has already featured that
peculiarly male organ the prostate gland, in my
interview with Dr Ronnie Cohen. Cancer of the
prostate kills 600 New Zealanders per year, but
research on causes & treatments is negligible.
This is the only fast-growing large category of
cancer in New Zealand lately, and is already far
more important than female genital cancers -
cancer of the cervix has been fairly steady,
killing about 90 per year. The cervical
screening programme of Mss Bunkle, Cartwright &
Coney , now reaching over 80% of the relevant
women with a so-called early warning test which
is of little or no use, actually causes indirect
harm, but continues to spend $6M/y nationwide -
about $2M/y in the Auckland region. Meanwhile, a
genuine early-warning test for cancer - of the
prostate - gets a subsidy of $0.038M/y for the
Auckland region, and even this paltry $38,000 has
been threatened with decrease.

The disparity of funding is one sure sign
among many of injustice to men.

North Shore MP Ian Revell convened (late
1997) a public meeting on health. Several Men's
Centre activists went along, and we asked a
better class of question even if I do say so. Mr
Revell turned out to know nothing much about
prostate illnesses, but undertook to look into it
for us.

Which is more than was done by his
unannounced sidekick Tuariki 'John' Delamere,
associate minister of health, who had nothing to
say on this aspect of men's health.

The Men's Centre will be pursuing this
important issue of prostate cancer. But most
common problems in men's waterworks are not
cancer at all - merely enlarged prostate tissue
obstructing flow. I have been personally
researching the operation commonly called a
'ream-out' or 'rebore'. The proper name for this
operation is trans-urethral resection of the
prostate - normally abbreviated so that my talk
this evening is called

ON THE TURPs .

Having now experienced an apparent rapid success
followed by a very trying setback, and discussed
with others their various experiences, my
perspective on the TURPs is I hope of some use to
those who may be contemplating this operation.
My conclusion is that the best current version of
the TURP is today rather highly refined. I urge
that fear should not be a reason to defer your
TURP if, on expert advice, you reach the
conclusion that the best way forward for you and
your prostate is to get on the TURP.

What is perhaps less well known is that
sometimes the operation achieves no benefit -
no change in the hydraulics. It would seem to
follow that, if your symptoms are not too severe,
the operation may be sensibly deferred. Such
decision cannot be properly reached without
careful examination by several painless methods.
If you have a severe problem in urinating, do not
delay expert examination.

There are indeed several versions of this
ream-out operation - thus the plural in my
title.

What I can be sure of is that the operation itself was painless.

A typical period in hospital for the
whole caper when it goes straightforwardly is 3
days but of course some will be unlucky and need
longer, while some will be home within 24h after
the operation.

You are vigorously urged to drink 2 - 3
litre/day straight after the op and indeed for a
week or more afterwards. My urologist slapped me
on a beer diet which he has overlooked to
withdraw; but there is some expert opinion that
beer contains something which irritates the
bladder, so be prepared to experiment with, if
not mix, your drinks.

My most urgent advice is to be aware of a
little-mentioned emergency which can become
serious within any hour during the recovery
period. Fragments of tissue, or clots, can block
the flow of urine. This constitutes *the*
emergency of male urology: an acute retention -
total blockage of urine flow - an urgent threat
to life, which must be relieved promptly. If
your bladder bursts into your abdomen it may well
kill you. I am sorry to say that there are
nurses who do not know this - "contact your GP"
one such nurse told me - so it is in practice up
to you to act on this basic rule. If you suffer
an acute retention, get hurtled to the urologist
immediately, unless you have made a careful prior
arrangement with your GP to fix it!

I am even sorrier to have to report that
there are nurses who do know what should be done
for this emergency, but withhold treatment -
presumably because they have really taken to
heart the slogan "all men are rapists" and
similar man-hating ideology. I strongly advise
men to stay out of the Auckland Public Hospital
emergency clinic, if suffering blockage of urine,
and out of that hostpital's urology ward
altogether.

Even if you are recovering in a good
private hospital, with a high ratio of qualified
nurses, you may be left in agony for an hour
while they refrain from helping you.

The practical advice therefore is: if you
suffer a complete blockage, get assertive - get
very assertive. You may have to insist with a
force outside your previous experience. You may
have to make more noise than would otherwise be
tolerable in a hospital. It may take such
unprecedented insistence to overcome this new,
wicked refusal of help.

And as you leave hospital make sure you
have a clear arrangement with your doctor to get
relief in the event of such a blockage.

To summarise: enlarged prostate glands
can be fixed by getting on the TURPs, an
operation which is itself simple & painless but
can lead to severe complications which some
nurses want you to suffer. So be in especially
close contact with your doc!

Germs gone wild

Genetically modified food and crops get a lot of attention. But GM microbes
might pose an even greater threat.

By Alex Roslin

Publish Date: 21-Jul-2005

The Georgia Straight

http://www.georgiastraight.com/

It is the end of June, and Catherine Anderson is excited about summer camp.
She won't be playing in the pool or catching butterflies. She is going to
Geneskool®. Anderson is the organizer of the two-week camp that kicked off
for the first time at the University of British Columbia this July. Twenty
students entering Grades 10 and 11 got a chance to sequence DNA and do a
family gene pedigree. And, oh, yes, they will create a new life form:
genetically modified Escherichia coli bacteria, better known as E. coli.

"It's really easy," says Anderson, a UBC instructor in dentistry and
medicine and a consultant at Genome British Columbia, a provincial-federal
agency that gets corporate funding to promote biotechnology.

"We're using a kit that has E. coli. You put in a plasmid with an
antibiotic-resistant gene and a green fluorescent protein from a jellyfish.
The next day, the kids get to see their kit grow green. Plus, the E. coli
will have antibiotic resistance."

Anderson quickly adds, "It's not scary antibiotic resistance. These bacteria
are very safe."

Geneskool, sponsored by UBC and Genome B.C., is just one of dozens of
places-mostly high schools and colleges-where Canadian teenagers are being
encouraged to try their hand at genetic engineering. "It's the perfect
marriage between recreation and science," Anderson says on the phone from
the UBC lab hosting the camp.

It all leaves Joe Cummins stunned. He thinks letting teens create
drug-resistant bacteria is one of the craziest things he has heard. Cummins
is one of Canada's most prominent geneticists. "I think it's spectacularly
stupid," he says over the phone from his home in London, Ontario. "Any way
you cut it, these high-school kids will get it [E. coli] on them. That's
inescapable among these young kids."

Cummins, 72, a professor emeritus at the University of Western Ontario, is a
walking library of genetics knowledge. Retired for nine years, he still
works at a dizzying pace, dashing off new papers and scouring obscure patent
applications and the latest genetics research.

On hearing about Geneskool, Cummins immediately thinks of a landmark Dutch
study from 1991. It surprised scientists by discovering that their lab coats
were routinely contaminated by genetically modified bacteria, which often
also penetrated to clothes underneath. "The kids could carry this into the
environment on their hands and clothes, and it [the antibiotic-resistant
trait] can persist in their bodies for years," he says.

That's troublesome, according to Cummins, because the students are giving
the E. coli resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin, which is commonly used
to treat bacterial infections and as a last-resort drug against bacterial
meningitis and the deadly strain of E. coli that killed seven people and
made 2,000 sick in Walkerton, Ontario.

The E. coli used at Geneskool is a different, harmless strain. But Cummins
says the risk is that it could pass on its ampicillin resistance to any of
the billions of other bacteria that live in a person's body or into the
environment if it hitches a ride out of the lab on a student.

At the company that makes the genetic engineering kit, Bio-Rad Canada,
life-science manager Tab Meyers says 70 to 100 of the kits have been sold
across the country in the past four years, each good for a class of 32
students or more. He won't name any of the schools that bought kits because
he doesn't want to "give them bad press". But he says the drug-resistant E.
coli is perfectly safe "unless kids ingest it. It's not a biohazard per se.
It's a relatively low dose. The only way they could come into contact with
it is by the hands if they are not wearing gloves," he says on the phone
from his Toronto office.

One of the guest speakers at Geneskool is Julian Davies, a prominent UBC pro
fessor of microbiology and immunology. Davies also defends the E. coli
experiment. He says there is only a "very small" chance that the ampicillin
resistance would spread to an organism in a student's body. "I don't think
people understand risk-benefit ratios. The benefits are high because you are
giving these students knowledge. The risks are extraordinarily small,"
Davies says on the phone from his office. "I'm probably full of
ampicillin-resistant bugs. I never drink any [bacteria] cultures, but I've
spilled it on my hand."

That doesn't reassure Cummins. "There's just no way young kids should be
exposed to that resistance marker [gene]," he says. He says high-school
biotech experiments are an all-too-common example of the lax attitudes of
scientists and public officials toward the horde of genetically modified
bacteria and viruses being engineered in labs around the world. "This is
typical of much of Canadian biotechnology," he says. "They tend to be wildly
careless."

So far in the debate about genetic engineering, tiny germs have mostly
escaped attention. The focus has been on things like GM-food labels and the
ethics of designer babies or cloned pets. Yet the single most genetically
transformed organism isn't canola, sheep, or the glow-in-the-dark pet
GloFish. It is the wee little E. coli bacterium, which lives by the billions
in every person's gut. The E. coli is the love machine of the living world.
It multiplies so fast that a single organism's offspring could weigh as much
as the Earth in two days if they didn't run out of food or space.
Drug-making companies harness the awesome sexual power of the E. coli and
other microbes as their main workhorses on which to experiment with new
drugs. New species of E. coli are created every day after being chopped up
and reshuffled with genes from people, pigs, jellyfish, and viruses like
HIV. The E. coli is so prolific at passing on its genes, in fact, that it
can do so even after it is dead.

That's what keeps Cummins up at night. How are labs making sure that
engineered microbes don't escape into the environment and pass on their
traits in an uncontrollable way? The question may seem like a no-brainer,
but Canada and the United States have virtually no special legal or
regulatory requirements for the safety of labs that work with GM bacteria
and viruses. The main confinement and disposal rules are voluntary
guidelines. The hundreds of Canadian and U.S. labs that make GM microbes are
on the honour system. Regulators in both countries don't even know how many
such labs exist or what they are creating. And neither country requires labs
to report any but the most serious GM lab accidents.

In the foothills of the Rockies, in Denver, Colorado, Suzanne Wuerthele
shares Cummins's worries. She is not just another run-of-the-mill biotech
skeptic. Wuerthele has been a risk-assessment expert at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for 20 years and is its regional
toxicologist for six western states.

"There has been a lot of hype about GM plants and salmon, but microorganisms
have much more potential to do things we would not be happy with and to do
it without us even knowing about it," she says.

Wuerthele had a front-row seat for one near-catastrophe: the case of the
rogue Klebsiella planticola. It all started just over the Rockies from
Wuerthele's office, in Oregon's lush Willamette Valley. There, in Oregon
State University's botany department, professor Elaine Ingham stepped into
her lab one day in 1992, not imagining that she would stumble on a potential
biotech Chernobyl.

Her grad student was in a panic. The Mason jars in which they were growing
wheat were filled with brown mush. Ingham had gotten an EPA grant to test a
genetically engineered strain of Klebsiella, a common soil bacterium. A
European company was planning to commercially market the modified bacterium,
K. planticola, which was being touted as a miracle product for
farmers-engineered to decompose plant stubble and debris left over on fields
after harvest time. The process would create valuable byproducts: fertilizer
sludge and alcohol.

But when Ingham, a soil microbiologist, saw her jars, the flaw in this
intrepid plan became clear. All 15 wheat plants growing in soil with the
engineered K. planticola were dead, while the plants growing with natural K.
planticola were just fine. Ingham repeated the experiment four times in
different soils, with the same results: the GM Klebsiella killed the plants.
If the nasty bacteria got out in the wild, she surmised, it would probably
spread uncontrollably, wiping out crops, forests, and ecosystems in its path
and unleashing an environmental disaster.

"That would have been the end of terrestrial plants," she says in a phone
interview from Corvallis, Oregon, where she now runs an organic-consulting
business. "It would have dispersed any time a bird moved it to another
field."

Alarmed, Ingham contacted the EPA. She was told the agency had already
determined the product was safe and was close to approving it for
experimental field trials in the open air. "You've got to stop that," Ingham
replied.

The EPA shelved the monster germ. And then the episode was promptly
forgotten. The reaction to Ingham's finding was also curious. Scientific
journals refused to publish the results; it took seven years to find one
that would. In the meantime, Ingham and her grad student came under attack
from biotech supporters and both ended up quitting the university. Today,
many scientists have never heard of the near miss.

Wuerthele still finds the episode troubling and says it illustrates the
government's sometimes hands-off approach to overseeing genetic engineering.
"We don't really know what would have happened," she says. "This
microorganism interfered with plant growth. It could have caused serious
agronomic problems and it could have spread, but we don't know how far."

Wuerthele found herself at the centre of yet another GM flap in the
mid-1990s. Becker Underwood, an Iowa-based agrifood giant, wanted the EPA's
approval for a genetically modified strain of a soil bacterium called
Rhizobium meliloti. An EPA colleague asked Wuerthele to look at the agency's
risk assessment. The product was to be the first GM microbe okayed for
commercial sale in North America. Rhizobium is a naturally occurring soil
bacterium that lives on the roots of legumes; it had been engineered to
allow farmers to increase alfalfa yields.

The problem for Wuerthele was that the bacteria were also engineered to
contain marker genes that conferred resistance to two antibiotics used
against tuberculosis, tularemia, and the plague. (Scientists often insert
drug-resistant marker genes into GM microbes and crops so they can later
tell if a particular organism is genetically modified or not.) The drug
resistance could pass on to other organisms in the environment, Wuerthele
thought. Would it spawn a superbug, an antibiotic-resistant pathogen
dangerous to humans?

Wuerthele was flabbergasted when she saw the risk assessment. "It was a
joke, three or four pages, and it didn't ask any questions," she says. "I
got kind of wound up, asking a lot of questions about this." Wuerthele
discovered that 2,000 species of legumes growing in North America also have
Rhizobium on their roots. No one had studied how the product might affect
them. Would they become invasive superweeds? To make matters worse, it wasn'
t even clear that the bacteria really helped alfalfa grow better.

In Washington, EPA officials, under enormous pressure to okay biotech
products, dithered for years about what to do. Finally, the product was
referred to an outside advisory panel. Only one of the six scientists on the
panel gave it the thumbs up. When it became clear the EPA would move to
approve the bacteria anyway, one member, Conrad Istock, resigned in protest.
"It's just good practice not to leave antibiotic resistance in organisms
that you are going to release," Istock, now a visiting fellow at Cornell
University, says in a phone interview from his home in Ithaca, New York.
"According to risk-benefit analysis, if it has no benefit why take the
risk?"

The EPA approved the Rhizobium for sale in 1997. The agency never followed
up to study the impact of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria, Wuerthele says,
or even to see if it actually helped farmers grow more alfalfa.

In Canada, Joe Cummins was one of the few scientists in the world to take an
interest in the Klebsiella and Rhizobium cases. He had been warning about
biotechnology for years, but this was worse than anything he had imagined.
"Potentially, it was a doomsday scenario," he says of the K. planticola
close call. "The regulators in the U.S. and Canada are very harebrained and
not attuned to the consequences of their actions."

The lack of government oversight, Cummins says, has allowed GM
drug-resistant microbes to escape from labs for many years. And that, he
believes, may be a big reason for the rise of drug-resistant diseases around
the world in the past 30 years.

It is a controversial claim that runs counter to orthodox scientific
opinion, which holds that the main culprit is the overuse of antibiotics in
hospitals and cattle feed. But Cummins says antibiotics have been widespread
since the Second World War, while supergerms started appearing in huge
numbers only in the 1970s-coinciding with the rise of genetic engineering.
Cummins detailed his alternative theory in a 1998 study he coauthored in the
journal Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease. The stakes, the study said,
are very grave: the World Health Organization had predicted that
drug-resistant bugs would cause a global disease pandemic.

"Biotechnology has effectively opened up highways for horizontal gene
transfer and recombination, where previously, there was only restricted
access through narrow, tortuous footpaths," the study said. "These gene
transfer highways connect species in every Domain and Kingdom with the
microbial populations via the universal mixing vessel, E. coli."

Cummins's study said government regulations on GM bugs were "grossly
inadequate". As an example, it mentioned Novo Nordisk, a Danish biotech
giant that has admitted to routinely discharging genetically modified
microbes into the water and air along with other effluent. (On its Web site,
the company says it discharged 10,000 GM microbes per millilitre of waste
water and 100,000 GM microbes per cubic metre of air emissions. It says the
discharges were safe and okayed by Danish authorities, but it also reports
several accidents that released GM microbes into the sewer system.) The
study concluded by calling for an independent public inquiry into how
biotechnology has contributed to supergerms.

Cummins's concerns are dismissed by many scientists. Although some
acknowledge he may be right about GM bugs contributing to antibiotic
resistance, they suggest it is a hypothetical question that isn't a priority
for action. "I think it is a theoretical possibility and we need to be
vigilant about it, but that's as far as it goes," Robert Burnham, medical
director at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, says in a phone
interview from his Vancouver office.

At UBC, professor Julian Davies has no doubt that the main culprit in the
rise of virulent new diseases is overuse of antibiotics. "I'm more worried
about natural microbes than genetically modified ones," he says. But he
agrees that genetic engineering may have been a factor: "You can never say
it hasn't been."

But other scientists are concerned. Charles Greer, a scientist at the
National Research Council of Canada, got an Environment Canada grant to
study whether or not GM microorganisms could pass their traits to natural
germs. He thinks releasing microbes with antibiotic resistance into the
environment is a bad idea. "Things like antibiotic-resistance genes, which
can be transferred into other organisms, are clearly the types of genes you
do not want to introduce into the wild," he says over the phone from his
office in Montreal.

As for GM microbes escaping from labs, Davies says he isn't too worried. UBC
's microbiology department, where he works, is allowed to police itself. He
has never seen a provincial or federal inspection of the department's labs,
he says, and the university doesn't inspect either. If anything, Davies
believes the system is too cautious. "Most people in the department are
pretty vigilant," he adds.

Canada's top cop for GM labs is Paul Payette. He is director of the Public
Health Agency of Canada's office of laboratory security, where he oversees
3,000 labs-mostly pharmaceutical and other commercial facilities-that import
all manner of microbes. Four employees are available to do on-site
inspections of all the labs. Payette has no breakdown of how many of the
labs are working with biotech organisms versus natural ones.

Maureen Best, a senior biosafety consultant at Payette's office, confesses
that spot checks "do not happen very often" and the safety office doesn't
keep tabs on lab accidents. "Unfortunately, there is no national or
international reporting mechanism," she says.

The federal auditor general's office has expressed concerns about the lax
standards. In a 1998 report, it criticized Canadian biosafety rules as being
weaker than those in the U.S. and called on the lab-security office to do a
review of every lab in the country to verify if the safety guidelines were
being respected. (Payette said he wasn't sure if the review was done; later,
he wrote in an e-mail that the review had not been conducted.)

Meanwhile, university lab technicians across the country are full of horror
stories about the facilities where they work: injuries, fires, explosions,
old and faulty equipment, widely varying safety standards. "There are human
errors all the time," says Hélène Laliberté, a union official at the
University of Montreal who represents 200 lab technicians, on the phone from
her office. "Safety regulations are not a big priority."

Maryann DeFrancis, a union health-and-safety rep for technicians at the
University of Toronto, says: "It's our members' lives at stake. There should
be a more rigorous approach." And Kevin Whittaker, a health-and-safety union
rep at McGill University, says from his office: "Guidelines are fine. The
problem is they are not always adhered to. There is nothing to enforce them.
It's very lax."

At UBC, lab technicians are not organized into a union. The university
responded to a freedom-of-information request for records on lab-safety
policy, inspections, and accidents by demanding a $2,012 processing fee.

Simon Fraser University responded to a freedom-of-information request with a
letter saying it knows of no accidents at its GM labs in the past two years.
It also sent its latest annual biosafety report, which says containment
equipment in the labs is certified annually. The labs dispose of
microorganisms by heating them at high temperature in a machine called an
autoclave, then tossing them in the garbage or having them sent to a
landfill site. The university has no record of inspections of the
autoclaves, and a table for results of such inspections is left blank in the
report.

At the EPA in Denver, Suzanne Wuerthele says lab safety is a big worry for
her. "There are no [government] inspections to my knowledge of the
facilities that do this, and we don't even know who they are," she says from
her office.

Wuerthele is especially concerned about how GM microbes are disposed of by
labs. It is typical, she says, for labs to flush them down the drain or toss
them in the trash after they are autoclaved or sterilized. The goal is,
typically, to kill 99.9999 percent of the microbes, but Wuerthele says it is
normal to have survivors because of the huge numbers of germs created. "If
you make 50 tonnes of something, you may still wind up with a fairly large
number of organisms still alive," she says.

Despite the revolution in biotechnology of the 1990s, the last public debate
about the safety of GM research took place more than 30 years ago. The
setting was the rustic Asilomar Conference Center at the tip of California's
scenic Monterey Peninsula, where 140 biologists and regulators gathered in
February 1975 amid grazing deer and barking seals to debate the safety of
the fledgling technology of genetic engineering.

Known ever since as "Asilomar", the conference was provoked by worries that
Frankenstein-type genetic monsters would wreak havoc if they got into
nature. The participants formulated strict guidelines that were adopted in
1976 by the National Institutes of Health, requiring tight physical
confinement of many biotech experiments and forbidding genetic research with
cancer viruses.

But Asilomar was barely over before the scientific community, eyeing the
lucrative new technology, started lobbying the NIH to loosen its guidelines,
saying they went too far. In the early 1980s, the NIH agreed to gut its
rules, allowing genetic engineering to be done under loose voluntary safety
guidelines and dropping the ban on research on cancer viruses. Canada
adopted similar voluntary guidelines.

Although biotechnology was still in its infancy back then, the rules remain
essentially unchanged today, even though a series of lab accidents has
dramatically highlighted the dangers. Perhaps the worst case was in 1977,
when lab contamination in Russia is believed to have led to the reemergence
of the Spanish influenza virus, which had killed 20 to 50 million people in
1918 and 1919. Two years later, an accidental release of anthrax at a Soviet
military lab in the Ural Mountains killed 64 people. In 2003, SARS escaped
top-security labs in Singapore, Taiwan, and China, prompting a World Health
Organization probe that found few countries have adequate biosafety
practices.

And since 9/11, concerns about biosafety have heightened, thanks,
ironically, to $7.5 billion in new U.S. and Canadian funding for research
into defences against biological terrorism. Biowar experts say even the
high-security labs doing much of this research, a lot of it involving
genetic engineering, have sloppy practices, and the chances of an accident
have shot up with all the new research.

"The controls are pretty lax," says Susan Wright, a leading bioterror expert
at Princeton University who is writing a history of biowar. "The regulations
are not very enforced. I just don't see them regulating with any
regularity."

Last October, the Sunshine Project, an Austin, Texas-based biowar watchdog
group, released a troubling survey of 400 GM labs at universities, private
companies, and government institutions that got U.S. grants for research on
bioterror. It found only four percent fully complied with safety guidelines.
"Disregard for federal recommendations is rampant," the group reported.

In a follow-up study last February, the Sunshine Project found that only
three percent of scientists studying biowar germs had ever gotten a grant to
work with such bugs before. "Too many scientists with too little training
are handling agents that are too dangerous for their experience," the study
noted.

In Winnipeg, Canada's top-security virology lab shows the kind of problems
even the safest facilities can have. Three weeks after it opened in 1999,
the $172-million federal complex, one of only 15 Biosafety Level 4 labs in
the world equipped to handle the deadliest microbes known, accidentally
spilled 2,000 litres of unsterilized waste water into the Winnipeg sewer
system. In a bizarre reminder of Soviet efforts to cover up the Chernobyl
disaster, the lab didn't disclose the accident publicly for two weeks,
prompting angry Winnipeggers to hold a meeting to demand independent
oversight of the sprawling complex, which is located in a mixed
residential-industrial neighbourhood in the city centre.

The outside oversight never happened, but an audit declared the lab was
safe. "We made the appropriate changes to make sure that could never happen
again," spokeswoman Kelly Keith says on the phone from the lab. "We are
really one of the top labs in the world-if not the top lab-in terms of
containment."

But just months later, in January 2000, another spill released 100 litres of
lab waste inside the facility. And in 2003, the lab sparked international
concern after word emerged of a possible SARS contamination accident there.
(Keith says that to this day the lab doesn't know if it experienced a
containment failure at the time or not.) The lab was again in the news last
March when a courier truck crashed in central Winnipeg on the way to the
facility while transporting anthrax, influenza, and tuberculosis. Several
blocks were cordoned off before authorities announced nothing had spilled.

It all makes Cummins wonder. If a Level 4 lab can have so many screw-ups,
what kind of surprises lurk in less secure places? "We have grown very
careless," he notes. "It is as if workers and the public are really
insignificant."

No. 166, 21 JULY 2005
Flagging interest in a republic

Interest in replacing the monarchy with a republic appears to be waning. A Fairfax New Zealand-AC Nielson poll last week surveyed 1055 people nationwide with the question, "Do you think that New Zealand should become a republic?". 27 percent of people surveyed said "yes" and 63 percent said "no", (10 percent "don't know").

A May 2004 poll showed 41 percent favoured a republic, while 50 percent wanted to retain the monarchy. Growing support for the status quo may be connected to the recent London bombings. The Queen has been visiting survivors in hospital, while Prince William made a hit with the New Zealand public on his recent high-profile tour.

The results coincided with news that Telecom and NZ Post, have withdrawn backing for a plan to mail a petition on changing the New Zealand flag to 1.4 million households. Telecom spokesman John Goultier admitted the company's support "flowed on" from chief executive Theresa Gattung's endorsement, while NZ Post's Ian Long said his company only become involved at the request of Telecom, one of its largest clients.

These related issues reveal important dynamics about the nature of social change. There is a big difference between groundswell evolution over a long period and intense lobbying to trump up demand for immediate change. The former gradually materialises among citizens, but the latter is driven by political agendas.
The Prime Minister has adopted a cautious approach on both matters, but has consistently said change is inevitable. Like all political leaders, however, if she sensed gain in championing either cause, we could expect casualness to give way to direct action. In the last term Labour has claimed a change in social attitudes as a basis for several new laws. This is a clever tactic because it implicitly shifts responsibility from the party onto the wider electorate, claiming change is "in line with modern trends".

--

Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/20/EDG42DQD0T1.DTL

Turning Point for California's Farm Industry
Industry aims to strip local control of food supply

Britt Bailey, Becky Tarbotton

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Environmental and healthy-farming advocates are learning what
tobacco-free campaigners learned in the 1990s: When local governments
step up to protect their community's citizens, industry responds by
taking away the authority of local governments.

In spring 2004, three California counties and two cities passed
ordinances that restricted growing genetically modified organisms. In
response, state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), earlier this
month gutted and then amended Senate Bill 1056 with some of the broadest
and most sweeping pre-emptive language ever written in the Legislature.
Its purpose? To override existing local restrictions, prohibit any
future initiatives that might restrict genetically engineered crops and
eliminate local control of seeds and plants. Essentially, to hijack
control of our food supply.

Just as the tobacco industry acted to restrict local tobacco controls in
20 states, agribusiness corporations and their affiliated associations
are behind the moves to thwart local efforts to restrict the growing of
genetically modified foods. In the 2005 session, 16 state legislatures,
including California, introduced bills prohibiting local control of
seeds and plants. The nearly identical language used in each of the
bills illustrates a systematic and ordered approach to stifling
community decision-making. Agribusiness councils, whose leadership
includes members such as bioengineering firms Monsanto and Syngenta, are
promoting the legislation while the bills' initial language has been
developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative
public-policy organization.

What will such pre-emptive laws do to local control? According to Tom
Campbell, director of the California Department of Finance, "state
pre-emption laws can do two things. They can overturn the will of the
people in the event an initiative has passed, and they can prevent the
introduction of laws on the same subject from being introduced in the
future." Pre-empting local authority stifles citizen participation in
the democratic process and should give pause for any legislator or
citizen. What are voters in Mendocino and Marin counties to think when
their votes to restrict genetically modified crops and protect local
food and farming are worthy of so little respect?

There is no denying that agricultural biotechnology is a complex and
controversial issue. You would think this would be all the more reason
public debate and discussion should be encouraged, not silenced. Yet if
legislators such as Florez have their way, citizens will lose an
opportunity to be part of the discussion to resolve one of the most
challenging issues of our time. Local initiatives and citizen actions
restricting genetically modified crops are a signal to the Legislature
that Californians are concerned about this new technology and, in the
absence of government leadership, are taking matters into their own
hands to protect their environment, economy and health.

Proponents of SB1056 assert that California needs uniformity and
homogeneity with regard to seed laws and that the state could not
possibly handle a patchwork of laws passed by local government. Yet, if
local authority over seeds is taken away by the state, then so is every
farmer's choice not to use genetically engineered seeds and plants. Once
genetically engineered plants are released into the environment,
historically preserved and heirloom seed strains are forever affected,
according to a 2004 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Diverse
agricultural economies may suffer from losses due to this contamination.
For example, if organic crops become contaminated with genetically
engineered pollen, those farmers may lose their organic certification.

In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison in which he
stated, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society
but the people, and if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy
is not to take the power from them." That critical power is now being
challenged, as state Sen. Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata (Humboldt County),
noted: "Regardless of how you feel about the (genetically modified
organism) issue, taking away local voters' rights is a serious threat to
democracy."

Please voice your opposition to SB1056, which impedes our ability as
community members to protect and create a sustainable food supply.
Contact your legislator (to find out who that is, go to leginfo.ca.gov/
yourleg. html), Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (senator.perata@
sen.ca.gov) and Assembly Speaker Fabian N™Òez
(assemblymember.nunez@assembly.ca.gov). This legislation does not
represent the freedoms our country was founded upon.

Britt Bailey is director of Environmental Commons in Gualala (Mendocino
County) and environmental policy instructor at the College of Marin in
Kentfield. For updated information on the seed and plant pre-emption
bills, visit www.environmentalcommons.org/ gmo-tracker.html. Becky
Tarbotton is campaign coordinator for Californians for GE-Free
Agriculture (www.calgefree.org), a statewide coalition promoting
ecologically and economically viable agriculture.

Riot control ray gun worries scientists

Published: July 20, 2005, 12:22 PM PDT By Reuters

Scientists are questioning the safety of a Star Wars-style riot control
ray gun due to be deployed in Iraq next year.

The Active Denial System weapon, classified as "less lethal" by the
Pentagon, fires a 95GHz microwave beam at rioters to cause heating and
intolerable pain in less than five seconds.

The discomfort is designed to prompt people caught in the microwave beam
to move away from it, thereby allowing riot-control personnel to break up
and manage a crowd.

But New Scientist magazine reported Wednesday that during tests carried out
at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, participants playing the part of
rioters were told to remove glasses and contact lenses to protect their
eyes.

In another test they were also told to remove metal objects such as coins
>from their clothing to prevent local hot spots from developing on their
skin.

"What happens if someone in a crowd is unable for whatever reason to move
away from the beam?" asked Neil Davison, coordinator of the nonlethal
weapons research project at Britain's Bradford University.

"How do you ensure that the dose doesn't cross the threshold for permanent
damage? Does the weapon cut out to prevent overexposure?"

The magazine said a vehicle-mounted version of the weapon named Sheriff was
scheduled for service in Iraq in 2006 and that U.S. Marines and police were
both working on portable versions.

Techreview.com

From the Editor
By Jason Pontin August 2005

In May, at the Wall Street Journal's D3 conference outside San
Diego (an event attended by technology princes like Bill Gates
and Steve Jobs), I saw the elements of a computer that, if it
were built, would wonderfully improve the fortunes of poor children.

Nicholas Negroponte, founder and chairman of MIT's Media Lab,
showed attendees the screen of the Hundred-Dollar Laptop, or
HDL. Beginning in 2006, he said, he would build 100 million to
200 million HDLs every year--and distribute them to the children
of the poor world. Many attendees had read about Negroponte's
idea and dismissed it as quixotic. Hearing how an HDL might be
built, seeing a part of it, and realizing the scale of the project
produced a rustle of delighted interest.

Negroponte recently wrote to me about what he hoped the HDL would
do: "Education: one laptop per child. Whatever big problem you
can imagine, from world peace to the environment to hunger to
poverty, the solution always includes education. We need to depend
more on peer-to-peer and self-driven learning. The laptop is
one important means of doing that."

Can a $100 computer be built? Maybe. Negroponte does not plan
to use three expensive components of conventional laptops: Microsoft
Windows, a traditional flat-panel screen, and a hard drive. Instead,
the HDL will be loaded with Linux and other open-source software;
its display will use either a rear-projection screen or a type
of electronic ink invented at the MIT Media Lab; and it will
store one gigabyte's worth of files in flash memory.

The HDL has a number of other, intriguing features. Since many
villages in the poor world do not have electricity, the machines
may be powered by either a crank or "parasitic power"--that is,
typing. Once turned on, HDLs will automatically connect to one
another using a "mesh network" initially developed at MIT and
the Media Lab. In the mesh network each laptop serves as an
information-relaying
node. Households that have HDLs will be able to communicate with
each other by e-mail or voice calls.

Most importantly, Negroponte wants every mesh network to have
access to the Internet. The laptops will be loaded with Skype,
a communications application that provides free telephone calls.
Consider: the most forlorn parts of the globe might become part
of the wider world.

The most vital part of the plan is also, perhaps, the most challenging.
Internet access is not cheap in the poor world; infrastructure
is fragile and expensive to maintain. When I challenged Neprogonte
about this "hidden cost," he conceded, "[This is] a very real
issue. We are looking at ways to spend less than $1 per month
per child."

At first glance, Negroponte's economics seem rational enough.
The HDL will not be sold commercially; instead, education ministries
and other government agencies will purchase it. Profits will
be very limited: merely $10 per machine for equipment manufacturers.
Of course, building a laptop for $100 demands what economists
call "economies of scale." Negroponte's pilot project requires
commitments for at least six million orders. So far, China has
expressed an interest in buying two million machines, and Brazil
one million. At least at first, the machines would be built in
China, where Negroponte has been talking to manufacturers.

Not everyone is convinced. On the record, few are willing to
cast doubt on such a worthy project, but some informed people
to whom I spoke wondered whether the Chinese were accurately
estimating the costs of manufacturing the HDL.

But most people, like D3's attendees, are excited by the prospect
of the HDL. Why? Because it represents something of a second
chance. Nothing much came of attempts in the late 1990s to address
inequities in the distribution of information technologies; bridging
the "digital divide" is no longer a fashionable cause. But the
divide is real enough for all that. According to the World Bank,
the number of Internet users per capita in the poor world is
40 percent that of the rest of the world. The rich world has
three times as many computers than the poor. For more than five
billion people, the Internet is only a rumor. Inevitably, poor
children are the biggest losers: their lives are pathetically
circumscribed. While they need clean water, food, and health
care, they also need education and more-expansive horizons.

Attempts to bridge the digital divide failed because there was
no bridge. Nicholas Negroponte's Hundred-Dollar Laptop could
be that bridge. Do you think the HDL can be built?

[note evasion of the question whether it *should* be]

------------------------
Write and tell me at
=========================================

The MIT Media Lab is launching a new research initiative to develop
a $100 laptopóa technology that could revolutionize how we educate
the world's children. The $100 Laptop Project (HDLP) was announced
by Nicholas Negroponte, Lab chairman and co-founder, at the World
Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland in January 2005.

Here Negroponte answers questions on the initiative.

What is the $100 Laptop, really?
The $100 Laptop will be a Linux-based, full-color, full-screen
laptop, which initially is achieved either by rear projecting
the image on a flat screen or by using electronic ink (developed
at the MIT Media Lab). In addition, it will be rugged, use innovative
power (including wind-up), be WiFi- and cell phone-enabled, and
have USB ports galore. Its current specifications are: 500MHz,
1GB, 1 Megapixel. The cost of materials for each laptop is estimated
to be approximately $90, which includes the display, as well
as the processor and memory, and allows for $10 for contingency
or profit.

Why not a desktop?
Desktops are cheaper, but mobility is important, especially with
regard to taking the computer home at night. Recent work with
schools in Maine has shown the huge value of using a laptop across
all of one's studies, as well as for play. Bringing the laptop
home engages the family. In one Cambodian village where we have
been working, there is no electricity, thus the laptop is, among
other things, the brightest light source in the home.

How is it possible to get the cost so low?

* First, by driving the display cost below $25. We are exploring
five different options for this, looking at possibilities such
as projected image or roll-to-roll printed display. Projection
is the primary candidate at this time, and will bring the cost
of an approximately 12" diagonal display to below $20. Electronic
ink, invented at the Media Lab, is another option.
* Second, we will get the fat out of the systems. Today's
laptops have become obese. Two-thirds of their software is used
to manage the other third, which mostly does the same functions
nine different ways.
* Third, we will market the laptops in very large numbers
(millions), directly to ministries of education, which can distribute
them like textbooks.

Why is it important for each child to have a computer? What's
wrong with community-access centers?

One does not think of community pencilsókids have their own.
They are tools to think with, sufficiently inexpensive to be
used for work and play, drawing, writing, and mathematics. A
computer can be the same, but far more powerful. Furthermore,
there are many reasons it is important for a child to "own" somethingólike
a football, doll, or bookónot the least of which being that these
belongings will be well-maintained through love and care.

What about connectivity? Aren't telecommunications services expensive
in the developing world?

When these machines pop out of the box, they will make a mesh
network of their own, peer-to-peer. This is something initially
developed at MIT and the Media Lab. We are also exploring ways
to connect them to the backbone of the Internet at very low cost.

What can a $1000 laptop do that the $100 version can't?
Not much. The plan is for the $100 Laptop to do almost everything.
What it will not do is store a massive amount of data.

How will these be marketed?
The idea is to distribute the machines through those ministries
of education willing to adopt a policy of "one laptop per child."
Initial discussions have been held with China, where there are
approximately 220 million students (for which an order would
drive prices way down). In addition, smaller countries will be
selected for beta testing. Initial orders will be limited to
a minimum of one million units (with appropriate financing).

When do you anticipate these laptops reaching the market? What
do you see as the biggest hurdles?

Our preliminary schedule is to have units ready for shipment
by the end of 2006 or early 2007.

The biggest hurdle will be manufacturing 100 million of anything.
This is not just a supply-chain problem, but also a design problem.
The scale is daunting, but I find myself amazed at what some
companies are proposing to us. It feels as though at least half
the problems are being solved by mere resolve.

How will this initiative be structured?
The three principals at MIT are faculty members at the Media
Lab: Nicholas Negroponte (a founder of the Lab), Joe Jacobson
(serial entrepreneur, co-founder and director of E Ink), and
Seymour Papert (one of the world's leading theorists on child
learning).

Four other Media Lab researchers are also involved: Mitchel Resnick,
Tod Machover, Ted Selker, and Mike Bove.

Organizationally, MIT will work with a small number of companies
of complementary skills to develop a fully working and manufactured
laptop (50,000 to 100,000 units) in fewer than 12 months, with
an eye on building about 100 million to 200 million units by
the following year. Four initial companies who have committed
to this project are AMD, Brightstar, Google, News Corp, and Red
Hat. MIT will also work with the not-for-profit company One Laptop
Per Child (OLPC), as well as with the 2B1 Foundation.
-----------------------------

Please note: these laptops are not in production. They are not - and
will not - be [sic] available for purchase by individuals.

PRESS INQUIRIES:
Alexandra Kahn
Media Lab Press Liaison
617.253.0365
email via our contact us page

OTHER INQUIRIES:
Nia Lewis
niav@media.mit.edu

------------------------------

June 13, 2005

Essays by _Science_ news staff on 25 big questions facing science over the
next quarter-century:

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/?GXHC_GX_jst=8258c07850ea6164

- and plus you get a further 100 if those 25 aren't enough

R

Giles could have asked at least another half -dozen highly relevant
questions - but these two will do for starters.

R

Dear Moderate Muslims

Doug Giles

July 16, 2005 townhall.com

Dear Moderate Muslims,

What’s up? I see that you guys have been in the news a lot lately. I
thought I’d write you a letter and ask you some questions because it seems
as if some Muslims are involved in some very bad stuff around the globe,
i.e. targeting and killing innocent people and all in the name of your
god.

After the damnable 911 terror attacks, President Bush stated that, “Islam
is a religion of peace" and the people who carried out these atrocious
acts of war are the evil fringe adherents of a good religion. We’d all
like to believe him. The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, says that
those who carried out the 7/7 attacks on London held “poisonous and
perverted" views of Islam that are inconsistent with what the Quran
teaches.

So . . . what I’m getting from President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and
many others is that Islam, as it is taken from the Quran, condemns both
violent acts and those behind them and tables via its teachings harmony
with all of humanity. I’d like to believe that, and seeing that you’re a
moderate adherent, I’ve got a couple of questions to ask you regarding
some of the radicals who are seriously fouling your peaceful religion's
public persona.

Look, I know that all groups and families have relatives and constituents
they wish wouldn’t align themselves with their party or family because they
are . . . let’s say . . . uh . . . loopy. Like my one-eyed, Uncle Slappy
White who works for the Muleshoe, Texas sanitation department. Man, you
do not want to bring him around your friends, especially when he’s all
liquored up. He can be quite the embarrassment. Therefore, I can
empathize with being wrongfully associated with some weirdos who clearly
do not represent who you are.

Please indulge me, moderate Muslims. I have two simple questions regarding
your current religious beliefs, as we would not want you to be confused
with the aberrant devotees with whom, we were told, you wholeheartedly
disagree.

1. Seeing as how you differ with the radical lunatic fringe players in your
religion, we can safely know and state that you do not view the West and
those who do not share your religious beliefs as “The Great Satan" -
correct?

I mean . . . I know we eat pork, watch PG-13 movies, dance to Michael
Jackson, believe Hillary Clinton [at least some do on the left] and watch
Paris Hilton . . . it’s bad, I know. But c'mon . . . “The Great
Satan"??? Thank God, that as a moderate Muslim, you do not go so far as to
label the entire Western Civilization as satanic just because it isn’t
based on an Islamic worldview. Amen?

2. What are you going to do about all the verses in the Quran that instruct
Muslims to convert, conquer or kill those who will not bow their knees
to Allah? You don’t believe that stuff, do you? You don’t believe that
peaceful Jews, Christians and secularists are belligerent infidels,
right? I would think not, because that would be extreme.

As a moderate Muslim, can we rest assured that you do not believe that
warfare and terror are any way to establish your religion in people’s
lives? Can we also be certain that those of us who do not believe and
will not believe your particular take on divinity can feel completely safe
around you and that we can confidently expect you to work with us to build
our world into a better place without condemnation being breathed down upon
our heads?

Well, that’s it for now. If you could help me with these two questions
that would be really cool. Also, it would probably help us in the U.S. and
London if you’d work to communicate more regularly and vociferously, given
the continued bad press your radical adherents are getting, that you
fundamentally disagree with their violent behavior against an unarmed
citizenry. Communicating that and working very hard towards eradicating
their global threats would kind of help to balance things out a bit.

In addition, your public and incessant condemnation of extremism within
your ranks would also serve the purpose of exonerating all moderates from
the smallest hint of supporting such behavior. The reason why? It’s
simple. Usually, when groups are silent regarding an issue that should be
condemned it leads other people to believe that the groups really don’t
disagree at all with what has occurred and are, therefore, in agreement
with the bad people that perpetrated the despicable act.

I’m really glad that you are moderate in your religious views and are ready
and willing to work with us in stamping out these terrorists before they
can do any more damage to our people or your people. No doubt, as you see
people reeling from this most recent disaster in London, carried out by
people who you condemn as crazy, we can count on you to help lead the
charge in putting them down. We can count on you to monitor your mosques,
to get on radio and TV and to “out” these nuts, wherever they may be
found. Yes, it is good to know that we can trust you to blow the whistle
on evil plans - even if it means turning in some of your family members,
clerics or close friends.

Thank you for your help and all the best . . .

*Logon to ClashRadio.com to hear Doug's interview with Robert Spencer,
author of the book Onward Muslim Soldiers.

Foreign Policy Research Institute
50 Years of Ideas in Service to Our Nation
1955-2005
www.fpri.org

E-Notes
Distributed Exclusively via Fax & Email

THE RISE OF CHINA
by James Kurth

July 15, 2005

We print below the introduction to the Summer 2005 issue of
Orbis, a quarterly journal of world affairs published for
FPRI by Elsevier. In this introduction, James Kurth,
summarizes the contents of the issue, while offering some
thoughts on China's growing role in world affairs. A long-
time Senior Fellow of FPRI, Professor Kurth is editor of
Orbis, and chair, with Walter McDougall, of FPRI's Center
for the Study of America and the West. Dr. Kurth is also the
Claude Smith Professor of Political Science at Swarthmore
College.

Orbis is available electronically to subscribers to
Elsevier's Science Direct service at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00304387

Orbis is also available through standard subscription. For
subscription information, go to:
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/00304387

FPRI members at the $125 level or above receive a
complimentary subscription to Orbis. For membership
information, contact Alan Luxenberg at lux@fpri.org.

THE RISE OF CHINA

By James Kurth

The current foreign-policy focus of most Americans is upon
the Middle East and more broadly upon the Muslim world.
Given the ongoing war in Iraq and the continuing threat from
Islamic terrorism, this is understandably so. However, the
region with the most dynamic growth today - and with the
greater potential weight in world politics in the future - is
East Asia. And the most dynamic and weighty country in that
region is China.

The extraordinary growth of the Chinese economy is
generating waves which have already reached other economies
at the farthest ends of the earth. In a way reminiscent of
the British economy in the nineteenth century and America's
in the twentieth, China in the twenty-first century has
become "the workshop of the world," the core of the global
manufacturing sector. In doing so, it has hollowed out and
flattened the economies of dozens of once-developing
countries and little workshops around the world. China is
now also rapidly expanding its workforce in the engineering
and information technology industries. Like America during
much of the twentieth century, China is driving toward
becoming the office complex of the world, the core of the
global information sector, as well. In doing so, it may
hollow out America itself.

Historically, the rapid growth of the economy of a great
country has often issued in enormous-and disruptive-changes
in that country's domestic politics, in its foreign
policies, and in its military power. This, in turn, has
produced realignments in regional politics and eventually in
world politics-most obviously, with the rapid rise of
German, American, and even Russian economic power a century
ago. The rise of German power forced the hegemonic global
power of the day, Britain, into new alliances that
represented radical departures from traditional British
foreign policy. The rise of American power provided a new
candidate to take Britain's place in the role of global
hegemon. And the rise of Russia, which by the early 1910s
was progressing even faster than that of Germany, propelled
the latter country toward a grand strategy of preventive
war, a path that ultimately ended in the First World War.
That war brought tremendous disruptions to Germany's economy
and devastated Russia's, but it propelled the American
economy to even greater heights. Later, the rapid recovery
and expansion of the German economy in the 1930s enabled and
also propelled (because of Germany's lack of industrial raw
materials) the Nazi territorial aggressions that led to the
Second World War. Similarly, the rapid recovery and
expansion of the Soviet economy in the 1950s enabled and
encouraged the confrontational Soviet policies that led to
some of the most dangerous times of the Cold War,
culminating in the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

Of course, the leading policymakers of the leading powers
know this dismal history, and presumably they have drawn
lessons from it. For this reason, and for others as well,
China's rising economy and power do not have to end in some
kind of third world war or a new kind of cold war. But it is
almost certain to usher in enormous-and disruptive-changes
in China's domestic politics and its relations with the
other nations of East Asia, and in these nations' relations
and even realignments with each other.

This issue of Orbis focuses upon the new alignments and
realignments, both domestic and international, in East Asia.
Our articles discuss what is happening in China and also in
Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.

The Chinese Communist Party has dominated the extraordinary
history of China for more than five decades, and it has led
China's extraordinary economic growth over the last two
decades. But, as Cheng Li, a Chinese scholar now teaching in
America, argues in his article, the CCP is now undergoing
its own transformation, with the beginnings of a division
not just into two conventional factions based upon personal
cliques, but into two competing alliances of different
social and economic interests. If this process continues and
is institutionalized, the course of Chinese party politics
in the future will bear some similarities to the course of
party politics in some Western countries in the past,
particularly during the nineteenth century.

Domestic political changes and conflicts usually produce
changes in foreign policy, and this will happen with China.
The most important changes will be in China's policy toward
the United States. Peter Hays Gries gives an informed and
revealing account of how China's leading foreign-policy
intellectuals and analysts now think about the United States
and about the agitated topic of hegemony in global politics.

The most dangerous point of conflict between an expanding
China and a hegemonic United States is, of course, Taiwan.
China's domestic politics will shape this issue, but so will
Taiwan's. As small as it is, Taiwan could be the Archimedian
lever that could one day move, or rather shake, the world.
Shelley Rigger, one of America's premier scholars of
Taiwanese politics, gives a thorough analysis of the
connection between Taiwan's party politics and its "external
relations" (which encompasses both cross-strait relations
with China and its relations with other nations). She shows
that despite the dramatic and heated rhetoric characteristic
of party politics in Taiwan, there is a persistent structure
and remarkable stability to its external relations.

In a contrasting dynamic, Japan in the last decade has
undergone great changes in both its party system and its
government structure (e.g., the increased role of the prime
minister in policymaking). The long-standing "system of
'55"-the hegemonic dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party
after 1955-collapsed in the early 1990s. Robert Pekkanen and
Ellis Krauss provide an insightful analysis of these changes
and their important consequences for Japan's security
policies-both foreign policy and internal security. The most
important consequence is an even closer alliance with the
United States. This includes support of the U.S. war in Iraq
and also a closer alignment with U.S. policy with respect to
Taiwan.

We are thus in a period when relations among Japan, China,
and Taiwan have assumed a character that is more complex
than it was in the several decades before. Tomohiko
Taniguchi, a prominent Japanese policy analyst, helps us to
interpret this new pattern, which he terms a "cold peace."
The pattern is distinguished by the odd conjunction of both
rapidly expanding Japanese-Chinese economic cooperation and
seriously deteriorating political attitudes between these
nations. Japan has arrived at a similarly complex
relationship with South Korea. On the one hand, the two
countries' economic and even cultural relations are closer
and more cooperative than at any time in their troubled
history during the twentieth century. On the other hand,
Korea's memory of Japan's occupation and conduct from 1910
to 1945 still ignites political demonstrations against Japan
and disrupts relations between the two nations. Michael
Auslin discusses the connections between these two
countries, which he terms "the new East Asian core."

Our ensemble of articles on East Asia concludes with a
review essay by Bruce Cumings, one of America's leading
historians of twentieth-century Northeast Asia. He discusses
several new books which try to discern the direction of
twenty-first century China. America did not have a very good
record of understanding and predicting China's behavior in
the twentieth century. That failure was one origin of the
Korean and Vietnam wars. Cumings is skeptical of the ability
of the American authors whom he reviews to understand and
predict the China of the future. He invites us, rather, to
try to understand China as the best of that country's
scholars do. America is now dealing with what is
simultaneously the oldest civilization, the most populous
country, the most dynamic economy, and potentially the most
weighty country in the world, and we can't afford to get it
wrong again.

This issue of Orbis also includes articles on two other
regions, Europe and Africa. The center of dynamic growth and
power politics a century ago, Europe is hardly that today.
There is, however, one part of Europe that is experiencing
dynamic growth in numbers and political importance: its
Muslim population. Zachary Shore depicts the current
conflicts between the growing community of ethnic Muslims
and the declining society of ethnic Europeans, and he
proposes possible ways to resolve them.

Frederic Pryor addresses a different current tension, that
between East Germans, the former citizens of a Marxist state
and socialist society, and the Germany of today, a
thoroughly liberal state and individualist society. As Pryor
shows, East Germans appreciate some of what they have
gained, but they also regret much of what they have lost;
the result is a Germany that remains rather less united in
fact and in spirit than it does in form and in law. The law
and spirit of the contemporary liberal German state is
examined in further detail by Paul Gottfried in his review
essay. Germany today is the complete opposite of Germany at
the beginning of the twentieth century, and most people will
think that this is a good thing. But one of the reasons for
this transformation, indeed revolution, is that the liberal
German establishment has worked so hard to suppress any
residue of the German past that it has obliterated any real
German national identity. In the process, it has instituted
a new sort of political authoritarianism-one that is,
however, liberal in name.

In contrast to East Asia and Europe, it might be thought
that Africa has never been a center of dynamic growth and
power politics, neither today nor in the past. This is not
really the case, however. Godfrey Uzoigwe, a Nigerian
scholar teaching in America, presents a sweeping overview of
African history from the beginning of the Islamic conquests
to the end of European colonialism, depicting the rise and
fall of economies and empires, of wealth and power. Africa
was the home of formidable indigenous empires and the
foundation for several European ones. But now, after more
than four decades of independence for most of Africa's some
forty states, there is no sign of dynamic growth. There is,
however, plenty of evidence of squalid abuse of power.
Herbert Werlin depicts the extent of corruption in Africa
and offers proposals for its correction. Until this
debilitating social disease is cured or contained, all the
current projects to increase foreign aid to Africa will come
to naught.

In the meantime, Americans are quite properly continuing to
concern themselves with the ongoing war in Iraq. Glenn
Kutler provides a retrospective of the first two years of
that war, with a particular focus upon the U.S. military
fatalities there. He discerns that there was a regular,
cyclical pattern to these fatalities. He also argues that
they had already affected voting behavior in the 2004
presidential election, reducing the votes for George Bush in
the home counties of the soldiers killed. If the war and
U.S. fatalities continue into the 2006 and 2008 elections,
it can be expected that they will impose a serious electoral
cost upon the Republican Party.

Hegemonic global powers do seem to have a propensity for
submerging themselves in dubious and fruitless little wars
in faraway lands; it goes with the territory, so to speak. A
century ago, Britain was preoccupied with the Boer War and
its aftermath. British governments believed they were
bringing liberalism to South Africa, much as the Bush
administration believes that it is bringing democracy to
Iraq. They also believed that the gold mines of the
Transvaal were crucial to the global economy of the time,
much as the Bush administration believes that the oil fields
of the Persian Gulf are crucial to today's global economy. A
century later, however, we know that the real and
fundamental task before Britain in the 1900s was to somehow
manage the rapid rise of German economic and military power.
The Boer War was at best a distraction and a diversion from
this, and in fact it even aggravated tensions between
Britain and Germany. In the end, Britain failed to rise to
its great task, and the First World War was the result.

How will the Iraq War be viewed a century from now, in
relation to the real and fundamental tasks before the United
States in the 2000s? Certainly, Islamic terrorism poses a
grave challenge to the United States, but by now the Iraq
War seems to be more part of the problem than part of the
solution. In this issue of Orbis, however, we have focused
upon the tasks presented by the rapid rise of Chinese
economic power and the likely rise in the future of Chinese
military power. The Iraq War seems to be at best a
distraction and a diversion from this, although it does not
appear to have aggravated tensions between the United States
and China. Perhaps the real danger of the Iraq War-U.S.
military fatalities and all-is that it will create an Iraq
syndrome that, like the Vietnam syndrome of the 1970s, will
cause the American people to withdraw from an active,
coherent, and sustained foreign policy. If so, among the
fatalities in the Iraq War will be any future U.S. policy
toward China and East Asia.

----------------------------------------------------------
You may forward this email, provided that you send it in
its entirety, attribute it to the Foreign Policy Research
Institute, and include our web address (www.fpri.org). If
you post it on a mailing list, please contact FPRI with the
name, location, purpose, and number of recipients of the
mailing list.

If you receive this as a forward and would like to be placed
directly on our mailing list, send email to FPRI@fpri.org.
Include your name, address, and affiliation.

For further information or to inquire about membership in
FPRI, please contact Alan Luxenberg at al@fpri.org or call
(215) 732-3774 x105.

If you would like to be removed from our distribution list,
please type "Remove" in an email message to fpri@fpri.org.
----------------------------------------------------------

FPRI, 1528 Walnut Street, Suite 610, Philadelphia, PA 19102-3684.
For information, contact Alan Luxenberg at 215-732-3774,
ext. 105 or email fpri@fpri.org or visit us at www.fpri.org

In the circumstances one hesitates to mention the key fact which is
apparently not known to the unreasonable complainants, but it is
interesting enough that I'll take the risk.

After W2 the US veterans admin had hospitals full of mentally
disturbed men (yes, in those days it was still regarded as wrong to put
women in front-line positions) on whom all known medicine had failed. It
therefore became ethical to try psychosurgery if there was some reason to
believe it would help. Lobotomy was an obvious candidate (based on the
famous case of Phineas Gage).

But the USVA docs, to their everlasting credit, arranged a 'blind'
sham-operated control group who woke up with the operation scars on their
temples but had not had their brains touched.

The lobotomised patients, as a group, achieved detectable progress.
But, to a comparable extent, so did the control group. The immediate
conclusion is that if you pay plenty attention to a mentally deranged
person, and if the patient thinks he's getting the very best of treatment,
you have a good chance he'll tend to improve.

I once had the frightening experience of chatting informally with a
(rtd) prominent Australasian FRACS brain surgeon (now deceased), alluding
to the above facts, and suddenly realising, like a driver braking to a stop
at the edge of a cliff, that I had barely avoided disclosing to him that he
had been doing unwarranted psychosurgery. He was - I suddenly realised
- unaware of the USVA controlled expts.

I'm not learned in medical ethics, but my personal opinion is that
complainant Christine Johnson & allies have very little right on their
side. To apply the hindsight from the USVA expts retroactively to Moniz is
not rational.

BTW it's widely suspected that the Nobel cttee was in some
difficulty at the time in finding non-Germans for this prize. One could
hardly say Moniz stands out among Nobel winners. But he got it at the
time, and it's unreasonable to advocate the notion of cancelling that. Ms
Johnson should deal with her own feelings, not try to punish a deceased
Portugese who was, at the time, doing OK.

R

>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050713/ap_on_he_me/lobotomy_debate
>Lobotomy Back in Spotlight After 30 Years
>
>By LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
>

>The lobotomy, once a widely used method for treating mental illness,
>epilepsy and even chronic headaches, is generating fresh controversy 30
>years after doctors stopped performing the procedure now viewed as
>barbaric.
>
>A new book and a medical historian contend the crude brain surgery
>actually helped roughly 10 percent of the estimated 50,000 Americans who
>underwent the procedure between the mid-1930s and the 1970s. But relatives
>of lobotomy patients want the Nobel Prize given to its inventor revoked.
>
>The lobotomy debate was discussed in an editorial in Thursday's New
>England Journal of Medicine.
>
>Lobotomy was pioneered in 1936 by Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz, who
>operated on people with severe psychiatric illnesses, particularly
>agitation and depression. Through holes drilled in the skull, Moniz cut
>through nerve fibers connecting the brain's frontal lobe, which controls
>thinking, with other brain regions - believing that as new nerve
>connections formed the patient's abnormal behavior would end.
>
>Moniz, already widely respected for inventing an early brain-imaging
>method, gave sketchy reports that many patients benefited and was awarded
>the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1949.
>
>The procedure was so in vogue that Rosemary Kennedy, former President
>Kennedy's mildly retarded sister, had a lobotomy in the 1940s at age 23.
>She remained in an institution until she died in January.
>
>Other doctors used a more primitive version than Moniz, punching an ice
>pick into the brain above the eye socket and blindly manipulating it to
>sever nerve fibers.
>
>By the late 1930s doctors were reporting many lobotomy patients were left
>childlike, apathetic and withdrawn - not unlike the depiction in the novel
>and movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Use eventually waned with the
>advent of effective psychiatric drugs in the mid-1950s and the growing use
>of electroshock therapy.
>
>Modern views of lobotomy have led to a call to pull Moniz's Nobel prize.
>
>"How can anyone trust the Nobel Committee when they won't admit to such a
>terrible mistake?" asks Christine Johnson, a Levittown, N.Y., medical
>librarian who started a campaign to have the prize revoked.
>
>Her grandmother, Beulah Jones, became delusional in 1949, was lobotomized
>in 1954 after unsuccessful psychiatric and electroshock treatments, and
>spent the rest of her life in institutions.
>
>One member of Johnson's campaign, retired nurse Carol Noell Duncanson of
>Marietta, Ga., said her mother, Anna Ruth Channels, was lobotomized while
>pregnant to end chronic headaches in 1949. Channels, described as a
>brilliant and vivacious woman, was sent home incapacitated, Duncanson said.
>
>"The woman could not feed herself, she could not toilet, she could not
>speak and she was combative," Duncanson said.
>
>Channels eventually re-learned those things but remained childlike and
>unable to care for her daughters, who spent years in foster care. Her
>husband abandoned her and she lived the rest of her life in a small West
>Virginia town with her mother, who was resentful and ashamed of her, and
>an abusive brother, Duncanson said.
>
>"She never had a life after her lobotomy. She had nothing," the daughter
>said.
>
>Johnson, whose grandmother died in 1989, several years ago started the
>Web site psychosurgery.org to build a support network among families of
>lobotomy patients. Then she and group members began urging removal of an
>article on the Nobel Web site praising Moniz and saying he deserved the
>prize because there were no alternative psychiatric treatments at the time.
>
>The Nobel Foundation refused to remove or change the article. Now Johnson
>is asking Nobel laureates to support her campaign to strip Moniz's Nobel.
>
>"There's no possibility to revoke it," said foundation executive director
>Michael Sohlman, who could not recall a Medicine Prize ever being
>challenged. "It's a nonstarter."

>The Nobel charter has no provision for appeal of a prize awarded, he
>said, and the foundation ignores such criticisms, as it did when
>Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Peace Prize was challenged.
>
>Meanwhile, journalist Jack El-Hai recently published "The Lobotomist,"
>about the chief U.S. proponent, neurosurgeon Walter Freeman, who did
>roughly 3,400 operations. He developed the icepick technique.
>
>In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Barron H. Lerner, a medical
>historian and associate professor at Columbia University College of
>Physicians and Surgeons, wrote that the procedure was a desperate effort
>to help many of the 400,000 patients confined to U.S. mental hospitals at
>mid-century.
>
>He said a small number of patients became calmer and more manageable.
>
>"I think the numbers that were harmed were quite substantial," Lerner
>said in an interview. "It was way overused, and it was used in
>inappropriate circumstances - retardation, anxiety, headaches."
>
>El-Hai began his research eight years ago after meeting a relative of a
>man committed to a mental hospital for epilepsy around 1930 and later
>lobotomized. As he got into his research about Freeman, El-Hai wondered,
>"What led this undeniably gifted and compassionate doctor to champion a
>brain-mutilating procedure and why he stayed with it so long, past the
>point of reason?"
>
>El-Hai said patients no longer felt strong emotions and their behavior
>changed immediately, which was Freeman's goal. But he concluded Freeman
>was driven to be a showman.
>
>___
>
>On the Net:
>
>NEJM: http://www.nejm.org
>
>Christine Johnson's site: http://www.psychosurgery.org
>Nobel site on Moniz: http://nobelprize.org/medicine/articles/moniz

JONATHAN CHAIT
Los Angeles Times
June 3, 2005

I try very, very hard not to think of the conservative movement as a gaggle
of thick-skulled fanatics. To help me along in this process, I seek out
well-reasoned commentary from conservative intellectuals such as Tod
Lindberg of the Washington Times and Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review.

But my efforts at ideological toleration inevitably get spoiled when
something comes along like Human Events magazine's list of the "Ten Most
Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries."

Human Events is a conservative weekly that Ronald Reagan was known to
favor, and which the Wall Street Journal called a "bible of the right." It
compiled its list by polling a panel of conservative academics (such as
Robert George of Princeton University) and Washington think-tank types
(such as Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute). As such, it
offers a fair window into the dementia of contemporary conservative
thinking.

One amusing thing about the list is its seeming inability to distinguish
between seminal works of social science and totalitarian manifestos. Marx,
Hitler and Chairman Mao sit alongside pragmatist philosopher John Dewey and
sex researcher Alfred Kinsey.

You'll be comforted to know that Mao, with 38 points and a No. 3 ranking,
edged out Kinsey, with 37 points. The Feminine Mystique, meanwhile, checks
in at No. 7, with 30 points, just behind Das Kapital, which totaled 31
points.

Harmful books that got honorable mentions but couldn't crack the top 10
include John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, Sigmund Freud's Introduction to
Psychoanalysis and Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man. Oh yes, and
Lenin's What Is to Be Done. (If you don't see the link between arguing for
individual rights, exploring scientific mysteries and constructing a
brutally repressive Bolshevik terror state, then clearly you're not
thinking like a conservative.)

Interestingly, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a czarist forgery that
incited countless massacres and inspires anti-Semites around the world to
this day, failed to rate a mention. On the other hand, Unsafe at Any Speed
and Silent Spring, which led to such horrors as seat belts and the Clean
Water Act, did. (Given that Unsafe at Any Speed launched the career of
Ralph Nader, who went on to put George W. Bush in the White House, I wonder
if conservatives might one day deem it one of the most helpful books of the
last two centuries.)

Possibly even more amusing are the explanations for each book's inclusion.
They read like 10th-grade book reports from some right-wing, bizarro world
high school. John Maynard Keynes' seminal The General Theory of Employment,
Interest and Money argued that during recessions governments should cut
interest rates, reduce taxes and increase spending, and during expansions
do the opposite.

It makes the list because, Human Events explains, "FDR adopted the idea as
U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget
and an $8-trillion debt." (But didn't Keynesian policies help win World
War II and then produce 25 years of phenomenal prosperity? And wasn't that
debt less than a trillion dollars before Reagan took office?)

The squib on The Feminine Mystique begins with a fairly anodyne summary of
Betty Freidan's pioneering feminist tract. Rather than explain what's so
dangerous about allowing women the choice of having a career, though, Human
Events proceeds to quote a review that "Friedan was from her college days,
and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist." Not just a Stalinist, but a
Marxist to boot!

Personally, I fail to see how Friedan's communist past --- she was 42 when
she published The Feminine Mystique --- would discredit her insights about
the repressive nature of a world in which women were discriminated against
or barred outright from most professions and much of public life.
Especially because the conservative movement was itself heavily salted with
ex-communists. But then, my mind has already been poisoned by Dewey, Mill
and other liberal relativists.

NUMBER OF RICH PAYING NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX HITS 5650

New York Times
July 1, 2005

The number of affluent individuals and married couples who paid no federal
income taxes jumped more than 15% in 2002, to 5,650, new government data
showed yesterday.

The chances of having a large income but not paying taxes on any of it are
growing, according to the data, issued in the Internal Revenue Service's
annual reort to Congress on well-to-do Americans who live tax-free. About
one in every 436 high-income Americans paid no taxes in 2002, up from one
in 1,010 in 2000.

Overall, the top two percent of earners, the 2.5 million filers with income
of $200,000 or more, paid almost 27 cents in taxes for each dollar of
income reported in 2002, other IRS data showed. This group accounted for
53.5 percent of the income tax paid by all Americans.

Among that high-income group, however, almost 83,000, or one in 33, paid
less than a dime in taxes for every dollar of income. An additional 79,000
paid less than 15 cents. The average for all Americans was 13 cents.

Of the 5,650 individuals and couples who paid no income taxes to the United
States, only 728 paid any to a foreign government, while 4,922 lived
completely free of income tax. Many of those received money from sources
such as tax-exempt interest and Social Security benefits.

HISTORY, ACCORDING TO ROVE

EUGENE ROBINSON
Washington Post Writers Group
July 13, 2005

The Bush administration's relationship with the English language, I
confess, just drives me up the wall. How can these people be so comically
doofus with the language one minute and so brilliantly Orwellian the next?

President Bush's misadventures with the dictionary are legendary, and
they're the gift that keeps on giving. Perhaps my favorite classic came
while Bush was trying to sell his Social Security program in upstate New
York, and he uttered this timeless sentence: "See, in my line of work you
got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to
sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

The frightening thing is that we all understood what he meant. We even
understood him when he made his recent assertion about the imprisoned
evildoers at Guantanamo, that they are "people that had been trained, in
some instances, to disassemble." Before you could wonder where they were
getting their hands on the screwdrivers and wrenches, he added, "That means
not tell the truth."

No it doesn't, Mr. President. But never mind.

Of course, the president's father waged his own battle against the tyranny
of syntax and the dictatorship of grammar. His fumbles became a running
gag on "Saturday Night Live" and even prompted gentle gibes from his peers:
Once, the president of Uruguay welcomed George Bush the First to Montevideo
and, as the two leaders stood together, the Uruguayan told reporters he
would "answer any questions in my broken English, which is, of course, our
common language."

George W., however, makes his father sound like Seneca. He hasn't received
the same kind of ribbing from other world leaders, but maybe they're afraid
they might provoke an invasion or something.

Then there's Vice President Cheney, who suddenly has a different problem
with the language: He's taken to blurting out things that just manifestly
are not true.

The Iraq insurgency is in its "last throes"? In all the damage control
that followed that little outburst, functionaries found it hard to come up
with a defense that didn't begin, "What the vice president meant to say was
... "

Undaunted, Cheney then described the life of the hundreds of prisoners
being held at Guantanamo: "They're living in the tropics. They're well
fed. They've got everything they could possibly want." He made it sound
better than most of the vacations I've paid good money for, although as a
general rule I take a pass on constant interrogation and occasional abuse.

No, there's nothing sinister about Bush's fumbles; and yes, Cheney does
seem to genuinely believe the alternate reality he describes. But for an
example of truly Orwellian doublespeak, consider the following:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of September 11 and the attacks and
prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the September 11 attacks and
wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our
attackers."

That is what Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, said to a
group of New York conservatives last month, and I don't know how to
describe it other than as a Big Lie that could have been ghostwritten by
Big Brother. Rove is making an outrageous attempt to rewrite history.
There was no "liberal" or "conservative" response to September 11, there
was an American response. Liberals and conservatives alike died in those
world-changing attacks; liberals and conservatives alike experienced the
horror of that September morning and resolved to take action.

There was support across the political spectrum for Bush's decision to go
into Afghanistan, destroy al Qaeda and capture or kill Osama bin Laden.
Karl Rove knows that, but he says otherwise.

A year later, yes, there was disagreement over whether the United States
should invade Iraq. Many people, including many liberals, believed there
was no evidence that Iraq had been involved in September 11 or that it
presented enough of a threat to the United States to divert attention from
the hunt for bin Laden.

"Liberals" were right, in my view. But even if the "liberal" view had
turned out to be wrong, Rove's charges still would be baseless and
libelous. That's like saying that "conservatives" favor bombing abortion
clinics, or that "conservatives" favor establishment of a state religion.

In his speech, Rove alternates his references to generic "liberals" with
mentions of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean, as if they
represented a single view of the world; they don't. Since then, in
explaining --- but not retracting --- his remarks, he tosses in George
Soros as well.

He uses the language skillfully, all right. It's just that he seems to be
using it to compile his own growing list of Enemies of the People.

ANOTHER SCIENTIST UNDER ATTACK

Biochemist Dr Robert Mann has sent a letter to NZ Farmers' Weekly
responding to an attack made on the scientist, Dr Elvira Dommisse, by Dr
Tony Conner of New Zealand's Crop and Food Research institute.
In his attack, Dr Conner castigates Dr Dommisse as "oblivious to a basic
understanding of scientific methodology, plant genetics and plant
breeding." This seems curious, as Dr Dommisse is herself a former GM
researcher - a fact Dr Conner is likely to be aware of as Dr Dommisse did
her GM research at Crop & Food Research, the institute where Dr Conner
works!

Conner, of course, does not make clear that they were once colleagues,
which isn't surprising as otherwise people might reasonably conclude that
GM scientists like Dr Conner were people who were "oblivious to a basic
understanding of scientific methodology, plant genetics and plant breeding."
Dr Mann replies in forthright style to Conner's insult: "If gene-tampering
were so scientifically sound as claimed by its promotors such as Dr Tony
Conner, wouldn't a more accurate and well-mannered style be forthcoming
from them? Instead, the letters you print from enthusiasts for genetic
manipulation are usually intemperate raves, often on the level of mere
personal insults... [Conner] offers no evidence in support of this insult,
yet you print this rant which is arguably libellous and certainly untrue."
In a recent review of Prof Guy Cook's book, Genetically Modified Language,
we noted the pattern of attack on scientists who raise questions about
genetic engineering:

"The language of attack... is clearly intended to exclude the offending
scientists from the category of those capable of impartial and rational
assessment of scientific evidence, and to relocate them in the category of
pseudo-science and irrational opposition. This serves both to scapegoat the
scientists concerned and to remove the need to deal with them and their
findings on equal terms."

http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=68&page=1

REGULATING GM FOOD "SENSIBLY" - PROF DAVID SCHUBERT

David Schubert, a professor in the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at The
Salk Institute, has published an article in Nature Biotechnology in
response to an article by Bradford et al titled "Regulating transgenic
crops sensibly". Bradford et al argue that GM crops face a "daunting" array
of regulatory requirements which should be relaxed, at least in some cases,
to reduce the costs of commercialization.

The unedited version of Prof Schubert's article concludes, "Because of the
high mutagenicity of the transformation procedures used in GE, the
assumptions made by Bradford et al. and also the FDA about the precision
and specificity of plant GE are incorrect. Nonetheless, it appears that the
positions of Bradford et al. and the biotech industry, as well as the
current regulatory framework [in the US] for the labeling and safety
testing of GE food crops, is to maintain the status quo and hope for the
best.

"The problem is that there are no mandatory safety testing requirements for
unintended effects and that it may take many years before any symptoms of a
GE-caused disease appear. In the absence of strong epidemiology or clinical
trials, any health problem associated with an illness caused by a GE food
is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to detect unless it is a
disease that is unique or normally very rare."

- "Regulatory Regimes for Transgenic Crops", Nature Biotechnology (23, 785
- 787; July 2005)
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n7/full/nbt0705-785b.html
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5488
Another published response to Bradford et al comes from Allison Wilson,
Jonathan Latham & Ricarda Steinbrecher. It notes that transgene insertions
cause extensive rearrangements or loss of host DNA as well as insertion of
superfluous DNA. Yet these type of extensive mutations "would almost
certainly pass unnoticed through both the molecular and phenotypic
characterization stages of the regulatory systems of both the European
Union and the United States." The full response is at

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5491

ORGANIC FARMING YIELDS SAME AS CONVENTIONAL BUT USES LESS ENERGY, NO
PESTICIDES - STUDY

Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does
conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no
pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes.
David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agriculture,
concludes, "Organic farming offers real advantages for such crops as corn
and soybeans." Pimentel is the lead author of a study that is published in
the July issue of Bioscience (Vol. 55:7) analyzing the environmental,
energy and economic costs and benefits of growing soybeans and corn
organically versus conventionally. The study is a review of the Rodale
Institute Farming Systems Trial, the longest running comparison of organic
vs. conventional farming in the United States.

"Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30
percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce
less erosion, maintain soil quality and conserve more biological resources
than conventional farming does," Pimentel added.

Although organic corn yields were about one-third lower during the first
four years of the study, over time the organic systems produced higher
yields, especially under drought conditions. The reason was that wind and
water erosion degraded the soil on the conventional farm while the soil on
the organic farms steadily improved in organic matter, moisture, microbial
activity and other soil quality indicators.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5494

NEW EU MORATORIUM ON GM CULTIVATION

The EU Environment Commissioner has blocked all new applications for
growing GM crops in Europe. Stavros Dimas has ordered all to be halted
until the issues of co-existence and the contamination of seeds are
addressed at a European level. The new moratorium is likely to be a big set
back for the biotech companies; they were hoping this year would see the
first approval to grow GM crops for seven years.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5487

PUBLIC INTEREST LAWSUIT CALLS FOR MORATORIUM IN INDIA

On July 13 India's Supreme Court issued notices to the Union Ministries of
Agriculture, Science and Technology and Environment and Forests in the
light of the public interest petition calling for a moratorium on the
release of GMOs into the Indian environment. The so-called 'PIL' also calls
for proper biosafety testing and challenges the import of soya oil from
countries like Argentina and Brazil.

Those bringing the case, like Aruna Rodrigues, have noted, "independent
scientists have been threatened, gagged or fired; regulatory authorities
round the world have been compromised. In India, as the media knows,
Monsanto has doctored reports on Bt cotton. It is a story of skulduggery,
dodgy science and shaky ethics. It is all there in the evidence before the
Supreme Court."

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5490

VENTRIA PLANTS ITS PHARMA RICE IN NORTH CAROLINA

Ventria Bioscience has planted 75 acres of GM pharma rice near Plymouth,
North Carolina. Said Hope Shand, the research director at the Action Group
on Erosion, Technology and Concentration in Carrboro, "They were run out of
California, run out of Missouri, and then welcomed with open arms in
Eastern North Carolina. I just can't see this as a viable rural-development
strategy for North Carolina."
The company claims that the proteins it will extract from the rice could be
used in granola bars, sports drinks or rehydration formula to help infants
in the Third World avoid death from diarrhea.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5479

FARM GROUP RAISES DOUBTS OVER GM CROPS IN DROUGHT

GM crops are unsuitable for Australian conditions says Julie Newman from
the Network of Concerned Farmers. Experience around the world shows GM
crops need more water and do not perform well in drier conditions.
In dry conditions yields from GM crops have been up to 25 per cent less
than conventional crops. "There's been significant failures for GM cotton
in India, South Africa, Indonesia, soy in the United States and Brazil and
there's also some farmers complaining about GM canola in Canada - when it
was a little drier it performed far worse," she said.

New Scientist has reported on research in the USA which confirmed that GM
soya is much more prone to yield losses in drought conditions compared to
conventional varieties, due the splitting of the stems in conditions of
excessive heat.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5481

TRANSPARENT SYSTEM NEEDED FOR ASSESSING GM FOODS

Excerpt from a guest editorial in Chemistry & Industry by Dr Arpad Pusztai:
"It is ... not unreasonable to suggest that it is not only the biotech
companies that should carry out the risk or safety assessments of GM
crops/foods, but it must also be verified by independent scientists through
an open and transparent funding system. The basic rule must be that,
because we all eat GM foods, we are all entitled to scrutinise the evidence
relating to their safety. Therefore, secrecy is against the public interest
and unjustified. Similarly, all ethical concerns raised by GM organisms
must be settled inclusively by society."

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5492

That 'bedfellows' paradox of politics is illustrated by this man -
so wise & reasonable on this and many other matters, but a follower of the
traitors Douglas & Prebble.

R

Address To Barnardos Forum, Wellington, 15 October 2001

Stephen Franks list-MP

I respect Barnardos for inviting me to speak at this forum. Clearly from
their Proposal Statement I am to serve as the opponent, the point of view
Barnardos management want to rebut. As Barnardos wants me to fail I think
I deserve a favour.

That is to allow me the time to put into perspective this process of
presenting an unwanted viewpoint.

Want to look at the social context of this discussion - that is the levels
of suffering from violence in New Zealand (a society nominally at peace)
and internationally.

Then I will look at some of the specific arguments for and against
prohibiting physical punishment of children.

Finally I will come back to look at section 59, our legal approach to
assault, and the resulting difficulty in repealing section 59 of the Crimes
Act.

First, I ask that you listen to what I say rather than what you expect me
to say. I want to have some meeting of minds. I do not see discussion as
an empty ritual. The Barnardos paper is still a proposal. I believe it
will damage Barnardos' purposes. Too many great organisations have been
discredited by getting caught up in passing political passions. CORSO is a
sad example.

That said that [sic] I honour Barnardos for taking these issues seriously.
You see an awful evil, you feel the helplessness of children beaten or
abused. You want to do something about the worst kind of bullies, those
who betray the trust their little children should be able to have in them.
And no doubt you share the impotent rage that older children may feel at
their helplessness. You want to see an end to the brutalising effects of
this kind of physical abuse.

I respect your motives. Care for those who cannot defend themselves is one
of the finest things about our civilisation. I don't think it is any
response to say about anything just, "we have always done it". Simply
because something is traditional is not a reason to condone it if it is
wrong. I respect the SPCA too, for worrying about things as traditional as
fishing, even if I don't agree with all their positions.

I believe that the correction and guidance of children is better when
alternatives to physical punishment are used. They should be taught,
promoted, and used as best practice.

But I know I am going to leave some of you concerned, nevertheless, that I
must be insensitive, even a bad person, because I can not share your
conclusions. I believe you will make things worse for many of the children
we most worry about. Because best practice is not the choice we are
making. Laws don't create best practice. They can penalise worst
practice, if we are willing to put the effort into enforcement. I hope
that most of you will accept that the difference is about practical
outcomes, and not a difference in objectives.

I know too that accepting this invitation is risky. Most politicians avoid
morality issues. They decline to comment on cannabis, prostitution or even
of de facto relationship property. They weasel out because there is no
reward - only downside, for taking a position against an enthusiasm that is
fashionable with the media.

It is like rolling in barley grass. The barbs go in only one direction,
working into clothes and skin. Even when you pull them out one by one they
leave bits behind.

This political barley grass effect is because people who disagree strongly
on a moral issue will remember it forever. To them it shows whether the
other person is good or kind.

On the other hand those who agree with a moral statement soon forget who
said it. After all to them it is self evident. It is what they expect any
reasonable person to think, so it gives no credit.

I'm well aware of how few are persuaded by argument. We know from research
that people are persuaded by looking at extreme cases, not most cases, by
the herd effect, wanting to think like people we admire, by superstitions,
not evidence, about cause and effect, and by faith or wanting to believe.
The paradox of being human is that we can reason objectively, but we rarely
want to.

And so many decent New Zealanders judge from what we want to happen instead
of from what is likely to happen.

There is a law that over-rides almost every other law. As a lawyer I get
depressed by how few lawyers remember it. It makes the law a dangerous
tool. This over-riding law is one of the main reasons why free societies
tend over time to be better places to live than societies that use rules to
try to make people do what the elite want. They ignore the most sweeping
law of all. It is the law of unintended consequences.

The noblest intentions can bring the most savage and evil results. The
ideals of sharing, co-operating, democracy and eliminating individual greed
became the 20th century's greatest engine of human suffering. Literally
hundreds of millions of ghastly deaths over 5 decades came from the sincere
best intentions of communism.

Today bin Laden's suicide murderers are driven by sublime altruism, to rid
the world of what they are convinced is a monster, a West full of women
exhibiting a level of freedom that is sinful on its own.

So I have been determined in my time in Parliament not to judge law by its
proclaimed intentions or even the virtue or sincerity of its promoters.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. For me, a movement like
the movement to repeal section 59 inspires caution simply because of the
passion behind it. Too many in history have been duped into supporting
those who like telling lesser souls what to do, and enforcing their
theories with the coercive power of the state.

I know I risk being offensive with these comparisons, though that is the
last thing I intend. I fear that at least some of the advocacy of the
repeal of section 59 is just as poorly thought through, in terms of the
incentives it creates, the moral arrogance of some of its promoters, and
the lack of rigour in some of the arguments.

Violent Crime is the Issue

We agree there is an issue. And violence is the issue. New Zealand is a
very violent society. Just how violent few New Zealanders are aware. On
statistical comparisons we are now among the worst countries in the Western
world outside the former Soviet Bloc and South Africa. We are far worse
than the United States.

Hang on a minute some of you will be muttering. "The USA must be much
worse, guns everywhere, muggings and such a divide between rich and poor."
Let me shock you as I was shocked when I started looking for hard evidence.
The clean safe New Zealand in your mind is a myth. Perhaps those concerned
about violence enough to challenge section 59 may already be aware of how
serious our position is. But for those who are not here are some facts.
Using 1999 comparison figures:

the risk of sexual violence in New Zealand was nearly 3 times the risk for
an average United States citizen;

the risk of robbery or mugging was over 2 1/2 times;
the risk of burglary 2.2 times, and
the risk of car theft 1.6 times.

Only for murder are US citizens more at risk than New Zealanders and most
US murders are highly concentrated in urban lack drug dealing areas.
Indeed I am told that nearly 80% occur in 7 police districts. Many of our
rural areas are worse than the big cities. So even for murder the average
New Zealander is likely to be more at risk than the average US citizen.
So those who have written to me, sent me pamphlets about section 59 and
raised it with me in conversation don't have to persuade me it is essential
to reduce our criminal violence. And I follow the reasoning, violence
begets violence. It is a nice neat aphorism. It seems to reflect the
world as we understand it. Perhaps it explains the chaos that has always
been Afghanistan. And we have to consider seriously whether violence in New
Zealand is a product of the violence of parents toward their children.
Is it safe to draw that conclusion? Well I can't see it. First, New
Zealand itself was far safer 3 decades ago when the very notion of this
current debate to repeal section 59 was unthinkable. To ban smacking was
something conceivable only for the bizarre Swedes. Our schools were rife
with corporal punishment - but more on that later.

Can we draw conclusions from comparing countries which have significantly
different child rearing practices? We have already mentioned Afghanistan
as a place that has always been violent. But what about Japan? It is one
of the safest places in the world for women and children. They can go
virtually anywhere in the street at any time of the day or night. They
don't have no go areas. Child mortality figures are among the best in the
world. Nevertheless discipline is harsh and often physical.

So what conclusions do we draw? What should we do about our violence problem?
People can cite conflicting research. But there are some reasonably sound
research conclusions not driven by ideology or desire to prove a matter of
faith. Some things emerge as near certainties.

Psychology and psychiatry tell us that consistency and predictability and
the intent in discipline is much more important than the kind of
discipline. Cold deprivation of affection may be more cruel than
exasperation expressed physically.

We all know we should mean what we say to children and only say what we
mean. The violent child or adult, without self control and without
feelings for others may be more likely to have come from a home where
discipline was an inconsistent indulgence of foul temper. Vicious
selfishness is just that however it is expressed. And discipline springing
from loving concern will usually work almost regardless of how it is
expressed.

We have that disturbing data about children thriving better in their bad
natural families, than in apparently better foster arrangements.
But some who want to get rid of section 59 seem beguiled by the argument
that because child abusers may cloak their actions as discipline, we must
eliminate the discipline excuse for physical punishment. This creates the
classic baby and bath water problem.

It is the "if some is good, more is better" argument in reverse. We know
that salt is essential but too much is a poison. Children drown trying to
swim but we do not ban parents from taking them into the water. Cruel
beating of children is bad, but it is not a necessary logical consequence
that normal smacking is also bad. Many loving parents would argue that at
least a preparedness to use their strength is essential in their dealing
with their children. Assault would include dragging an unwilling child
away for "time out".

Where is the evidence of the effectiveness of a ban on the true targets? I
acknowledge the symbolic significance of a ban on physical punishment. It
would be a very strong signal of antipathy toward the physical abuse of
children. But that is not the real issue.

The real issue is whether such a statement and such a law will work. Our
existing law is very strong against child abuse. But enforcement is the
key. Enforcement involves doing three things properly, reporting or
detection, then conviction against the obstacles of technical defences and
evidence testing, and finally sentencing. Will and resources are needed.
If any one of those elements fails criminal abusers can gamble on getting
off or not being punished. When criminals know that, our law will not work.
There is no reason to think that repeal of section 59 will improve
enforcement. Critics talk of inconsistent application of the current law.
They may be uninformed or just dishonest. No one can know whether it is
inconsistent without knowing all the circumstances before the Court,
because the Court is asked to judge reasonableness.

None of the alternatives are more simple, or reduce the need for
discretionary judgement of the circumstances. It will move from the Courts
to the Police, if EPOCH's line is followed. And a simple repeal will vastly
complicate our law of assault. Assault is easily proved. So the judges
will have to wrestle with new distinctions, trying to avoid being forced to
convict people they see as morally innocent.

If those against child abuse want a strong symbolic statement of our
revulsion against brutality, what about considering the rhetoric that has
proved so successful in cutting US crime figures back to levels last seen
in the middle of the 20th century. What about something like "Three bashes
and you're gone". Unpalatable as it may be to us, crime has reduced every
year in the United States since 1991. Making the law more certain,
rejecting excuses does work. Violent crime in the US is now back below
levels at which many of their statistics first started in the 60s.
To the chagrin of many, on most measures of child welfare US children's
lives have been improving significantly for the last five years.
But instead our energies may be used up in a campaign that is ostensibly
against thuggish parents. It will be recognised as just an attempt to
impose loopy theories about child rearing by self nominated experts and
busy bodies. It will be fought at every level. The agencies and
institutions, like Barnardos and the Commissioner for Children, which
should be supported as champions of the victims will instead be seen by
thousands who would like to respect them, as stooges for the nanny state.
You can't attack child rearing practices, some of the deepest and most
important cultural practices we have, using only earnest intentions and
flimsy argument, without generating serious antipathy.

A law change that criminalises thousands of loving and well meaning parents
will be expensive. Stupid law is incredibly expensive. A significant
criminal case can involve costs of at least $100,000 between the
prosecution and the defence.

I am haunted by the thought of the innocent father convicted in Napier in
August, driven to distraction by a stepson.

"The man came home to find that his 14 year old stepson had beaten his
younger siblings and trashed the family home causing $2,500 worth of
damage. When the father found his son on the street near their home, high
on cannabis, he asked for an explanation. When the boy laughed at him, the
man snapped. Witnesses described seeing him crying before he hit the boy.
The man had shown his new family a different kind of life to the one they
had left behind. He had worked in the same place for 19 years and had
bought a home for the family he had taken responsibility for when he became
involved with his stepchildren's mother.

The Man's lawyer acknowledged that provocation was not a legitimate
defence, but if it was, the man would have a good case.
Judge Adeane said the man was a hard worker and provider for the family."
Repealing section 59 will empower the zealots. They will threaten and
force prosecutions.

I am sorry to have to say it, but Barnardos could in its publications, and
its support of EPOCH become party to public deception about the law. They
certainly wouldn't pass the Fair Trading Act test. Talk of the "Children
Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 proceedings", use of the "youth
offending" system, a "written police charging policy", dealing with
notifications "outside the criminal judicial system" is simply
disingenuous. If section 59 goes the Crimes Act law of assault applies.
I am against any law that does not mean what it says. Without section 59
the law will be an intolerable ass to thousands of responsible people who
should uphold it. When the law abiding middle class become contemptuous of
the law it loses vital force for everyone. There is more indecision for
those who must enforce it. More doubt about its value. More reluctance to
provide resources, more argument and more pressure on the courts to find
cunning or discreditable arguments to avoid enforcing the clear words of
the law.

Then those on the bottom of society pay the worst price, especially the
kids. The Lillybings are a consequence of our indulgence in sickly
cultural sensitivity, in losing confidence in our own core values. Law
that does not mean what it says deprives our agencies of moral authority to
intervene when they should. A lack of resolve or resources is unavoidable
when the law is being used to tackle more than it can do. It must ensure
the vicious abusers are brought to justice. Bogging the law down in
chasing parents who are not vicious child beaters is worse than useless.
If Barnardos wants a political cause there is one crying out for a leader.
New Zealand has no left wing equivalent here of Blair or Clinton, prepared
to call a welfare spade a spade. The state has funded the creation of
generations of bad families. When it began the welfare state demanded
family responsibility and contribution in return for charitable assistance.
Now assistance is deliberately amoral. I see that having produced far more
of the tragic cases we are all concerned about, than any amount of well
intentioned smacking.

As a lawyer I am also concerned about the absence of any evidence in the
case for repeal of section 59, that it will actually penetrate the
consciousness of the target groups. I simply don't believe the claims that
child abuse is spread evenly through society. That is not what experienced
police, judges and social workers say. It is not the case for other forms
of crime. While clearly there will be violence and harsh discipline in all
corners, the worst forms are disproportionately concentrated. In a few
thousand so-called families. And that is where the law should be directed.
Where the greatest good can be done.

It is disproportionately concentrated among people who are contemptuous of
the law anyway. Whatever the excuses, alcohol, religious mania, a warrior
inheritance or absence of self esteem, most of the people who commit most
of the serious crimes, including violent damage to children, don't choose
to obey many of our laws. Nearly 9% of people in our prisons are traffic
offenders. They are not there for jay walking or speeding or even careless
driving. No it is because they drive while disqualified up to 6 or 8 times
in a row. And many are also thieves and burglars. Burglars are also often
rapists.

The courts mean nothing to such people. A repeal of section 59 intended is
promoted to influence indirectly the behaviour of a small group in our
society. It could be at the cost of respect from a very large number. We
should know that the small group will notice or even give a damn that a law
change of that kind has been made before pushing on this.

I sound these cautions because I start with presumption that most cultural
customs have developed for a reason. I do not want to uphold traditional
customs slavishly but I certainly react against the sort of cultural
imperialism that would have parliamentarians and the law telling what may
be a majority of New Zealanders that their practices must be changed to
conform to the views of a minority.

Our basic Crimes Act standard may be foolish. It makes even the lightest
uninvited and unwanted but deliberate touch punishable. Continental law
may be more realistic, requiring an element of material aggression before
the action becomes culpable.

Simple repeal of section 59 is problematic because our underlying law is
so strict. It is a very bad standard for assessing the actions of caring
parents.

In relation to children or adults not all violence is equal. For humans,
like most animals, violence is endemic. It is at least as celebrated in
prose and poetry as dance or music, or eating. Rugby, our most popular
sport ritualises combat. Little boys play fighting despite the best
efforts of pacifist parents to soothe them out of it. We can try to deny
the reality of pride in courage, of joy in practising struggle, and
satisfaction in being staunch. But we run the risk of being as silly as we
think the Victorians were about a fundamental part of being human. We
think they tried to deny the natural reality of sex. Are we trying to do
the same with fighting and struggle?

There must be at least the possibility that we lose all authority and
influence over violence when we treat all fighting as beyond the pale, as
equally reprehensible, whatever the motive, and whatever the circumstances.
Humans develop customs to channel dangerous human conduct safely. If we
fail to respect and nurture such customs we may be responsible when such
conduct becomes utterly out of control.

Our ancestors worked up tests for just war. War is terrible. But war
between parties with no respect for the rules is much more terrible. The
Marquis of Queensbury developed the rules that channelled brutal
bare-knuckle fighting into the Queensbury Rules for boxing. Fair fighters
didnít hit below the belt. Gentlemen didnít use knives or broken bottles.
In throwing away the notion of the fair fight, in saying it doesn't matter
who started it, or how it is contested, we may all be to blame for the
viciousness that is now the daily challenge for our Police. We may be
responsible for the lack of help they get from ordinary law abiding people.
And so I get to the civil liberties argument. I could have started with it.
There must be grave and well established reasons before we interfere with
the decisions and customs of competent adults. Frankly I do not think we
have advanced life liberty or respect for others with the moves we have
already made in relation to physical punishment. I look, for example, at
the effects of the abolition of corporate punishment in schools. I am told
there were 23,000 school suspensions.

Our schools and our teachers were more secure before we abolished corporal
punishment in schools in 1990. Suspension figures were not kept prior to
1991. In that year there were 4,297 suspensions and 175 expulsions. In
2000 there were 22,029 suspensions and stand downs and 157 expulsions.
Many of them were for violence or threats of violence to other students,
and even teachers.

That doesn't necessarily mean cause and effect but it should at least cause
us to be hesitant before accepting the proposition that all violence
towards children begets violence from children. Cause and effect in human
affairs is very complex. This is not an argument that there is no cause
and effect. Just a warning that it may be very hard to use simple slogans
with any intellectual integrity.

In my old school suspension was reserved for truly heinous behaviour. I
remember it happening very rarely, perhaps one or two cases a year.
Perhaps it is still reserved for heinous cases and there were 23,000
examples of such behaviour last year.

I know that good dedicated teachers are now driven from teaching by
insolence, lack of respect for learning and the rights of others in class
to learn, bullying and even physical fear in their classrooms. Possibly
corporal punishment would have left with teachers a tool for controlling
boys so that they had not sunk in performance and aspiration in relation to
girls schools as they have. We may never know. But we do know the nirvana
of mutual respect supposed to come when teachers were prevented from
physically punishing children, seems much further away than it ever was.
I suspect that teachers have embraced theories and practices that are in
effect the suicide of satisfying professional careers. When a critical
minority of children in class cease to believe there are sanctions that
could really affect them, the school becomes a more menacing place for
every child, including themselves. And all children learn something that
should not be, that the authorities can be mocked, that rules donít
necessarily mean what they say, that cheats can prosper, and bullies do get
away with it.

I am not urging the restoration of corporal punishment. If the teaching
profession opposes it there would be little point. But what I am saying is
that many of the arguments for repeal of section 59 sound remarkably like
the arguments we heard years ago when corporal punishment in schools was
abolished. We should all be sobered by the fact that none of the promised
or even hoped-for outcomes have materialised. Indeed schools today look
much more like the predictions of people who opposed the reforms. We
thought they were alarmist fuddy-duddies.

I want to close with some words used in 1650 by Oliver Cromwell. They now
seem very strange to us. He was trying to persuade the self righteous
elders of the Scottish Kirk to let their followers listen to his appeal to
avoid battle. "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible
you may be mistaken."

As Cromwell might have done I beg of you not to commit the mana of
Barnardos to this campaign over the legitimate doubts of many of your loyal
supporters. Many of them will harbour worries. You may be wrong.
And even if you will not change your minds at least respect the reasoning
and motives of those who will disagree with you.

Maxim Institute - real issues - No 165

Vandalism - selective indignation?

There has been widespread condemnation of those responsible for the
vandalism of Auckland mosques following the attacks in London last week.
Six mosques had windows broken and the words 'RIP LONDON' scrawled on their
walls. Religious and political leaders have deplored the behaviour, and
rightly so. This sort of thing stirs up ethnic and religious unrest and
wrongly suggests that all Muslims - even those living 12,000 kilometres
away from the terrorists - were somehow responsible.

Like adherents of other numerically large faiths, there is a widespread
variation of belief within Islam, and those responsible (assuming they were
linked to al-Qaeda and inspired by Jihad against the West) represent only a
small minority. Many New Zealand Muslims are grateful to have escaped
war-torn homelands and seek a more peaceful and tolerant society.

What we haven't heard about, though, are the recent attacks on Christian
churches in Taupo. A number of worship centres including Taupo Baptist, St
Andrew's Anglican, and St Paul's Church have been vandalised in the town
with considerable damage caused. Beyond the local area this hasn't made
national news, but in light of the publicity surrounding the Auckland
mosques it is reasonable to ask why.

Could it be that the politicised notion of tolerance that has become
fashionable means that attacks (verbal or tangible) on Christianity are now
somehow less serious than those directed at other faiths? Christians don't
fit under the profile of a 'minority' or 'oppressed group'. On the
contrary, for many Christianity represents a 'hegemonic' order whose
principles are not only outdated, but to be challenged and resisted.

While it is right to condemn any wanton destruction, our leaders show
selective indignation when they speak out about one instance, while
ignoring others.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1528336,00.html?gusrc=rss

Marx voted top thinker

Charlotte Higgins Thursday July 14, 2005
Guardian

In a shock result, Karl Marx has been voted the greatest ever philosopher
following a poll by Melvyn Bragg's Radio 4 show In Our Time
.

In the public's poll, which assessed 20 philosophers, Marx, author of the
Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, got 27.93% of the 30,000 votes. In
second place came David Hume with 12.67%, followed by Ludwig Wittgenstein
with 6.8%. Plato trailed in fifth place and Socrates at eighth.

Andrew Chitty, who, at Sussex University, teaches the UK's only MA in
Marxist philosophy, said: "This shows that philosophy should take Marxism
seriously. It is possible he won because Marxists organised a mass vote;
they're much more organised than Hegelians, for instance.

"But I think it's more likely that people understand that in this
increasingly capitalist world Marx gives us the best vision with which to
understand that world. Marx talks about capital in a philosophical way -
he's unique in that."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1528137,00.html
Comment
Kapital gain

Karl Marx is now the Home Counties' favourite
Mark Seddon Thursday July 14, 2005
Guardian

Karl Marx is the nation's most revered philosopher. No, this isn't old
Soviet agitprop, but the result of a Radio 4 listeners' poll organised by
the broadcaster Melvyn Bragg for his series In Our Time. The veteran
Marxist historian, Eric Hobsbawm, thinks he knows why. His reasoning is as
contemporary as Marx's was visionary. "The Communist Manifesto," he says,
"contains a stunning prediction of the nature and effects of globalisation."

Taking 28% of the votes cast, the former down-at-heel Victorian gent, who
suffered appalling outbreaks of boils, beat the Economist magazine's
trumpeted candidate, David Hume, hands down. So with even the communist
daily Morning Star keeping tight-lipped, the strange exhumation of Marx can
only be attributed to thousands of Radio 4 listeners in the Home Counties.
This is clearly a very real middle-class conspiracy, designed to give those
ex-Marxists in the cabinet - John Reid and Charles Clarke among them -
sleepless nights.

But should we really be so surprised? Marx, now freed from his flawed
pupils, is as liberating as he was when he published the Communist
Manifesto 150 years ago. Re-visiting Marx's theories on historical and
dialectical materialism, it is possible to see a genius at work because, as
Bragg would have it, "everything can be explained".

But then, as the self deprecating Marx once argued: "The philosophers have
only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to
change it." Marx reaches through the centuries not only because he
understood how modern capitalism would exacerbate the divide between rich
and poor, but because he could see that, left to its own devices, it would
create monopoly and exploitation.

He could have left it there, but of course he believed that there had to
be an alternative. And in these dumbed down times where Lord Birt's
blue-sky thinking and management consultancy gobbledegook has our
technocratic political class in a vice-like grip, it is refreshing to
discover that thousands of Britons must believe that real change is
possible. Amazingly for the slayers of social democracy in New Labour, as
many of these people probably live in places like Esher and Surbiton as
they do in Oxford and Cambridge.

Market fundamentalism has now replaced Marxism and its many derivatives in
the west, as it has done in the east. Elsewhere, nationalism and religious
fundamentalism vie to fill a dangerous, illiberal void. It is as if the
age of enlightenment, of the Renaissance, had never happened. Marx spawned
some horrors, and the flight from him by the political class has been so
total that the gentler tradition of democratic socialism has been all but
lost.

Marx's mother despaired at the futility of it all. "I wish you could make
some capital rather than just writing about it," she once remonstrated.
Well, maybe his old bankroller, Friedrich Engels, might have agreed, but
Marx has left a rich intellectual inheritance. Before Gordon Brown has
another chance to say "No return to boom and bust", I heartily recommend to
him a few hours spent perusing Das Kapital.

· Mark Seddon is a member of Labour's national executive committee
seddonzq1@aol.com

The main thing about this joker is that he's one of he most aggressive
atheists lately.

His arguments here are loose, as usual with fanatics propounding some
conclusion; but his conclusions on these particular matters are IMHO most
plausible.

R

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000&chanID=sa008

May 23, 2005
Fahrenheit 2777

9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories
By Michael Shermer

Noted French left-wing activist Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 conspiracy book,
L'Effroyable Imposture, became a best-seller in 2002. But I never imagined
such an "appalling deception" would ever find a voice in America. At a
recent public lecture I was buttonholed by a Michael Moore-wannabe
filmmaker who breathlessly explained that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Central Intelligence Agency as part of their plan
for global domination and a New World Order. That goal was to be financed
by G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, Drugs) and launched by a Pearl Harbor-like attack on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, thereby providing the
justification for war. The evidence was there in the details, he
explained, handing me a faux dollar bill (with "9-11" replacing the "1," a
picture of Bush supplanting that of Washington) chockablock with Web sites.

In fact, if you type "World Trade Center" and "conspiracy" into Google,
you'll get more than 250,000 hits. From these sites, you will discover
that some people think the Pentagon was hit by a missile; that U.S. Air
Force jets were ordered to "stand down" and not intercept Flights 11 and
175, the ones that struck the twin towers; that the towers themselves were
razed by demolition explosives timed to go off soon after the impact of the
planes; that a mysterious white jet shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania;
and that New York Jews were ordered to stay home that day (Zionists and
other pro-Israeli factions, of course, were involved). Books also abound,
including Inside Job, by Jim Marrs; The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray
Griffin; and 9/11: The Great Illusion, by George Humphrey. The single best
debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of
Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of
the most prevalent claims.

The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can
undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial
thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank
theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under
the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that
scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a
convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.

For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a
temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517
degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not
bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong.
In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society
and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent
of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other
combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which
continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures
above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building.
Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel
horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the
angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss
failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor
below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that
triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that
the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent
of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight
down.

All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. On the Pentagon
"missile strike," for example, I queried the would-be filmmaker about what
happened to Flight 77, which disappeared at the same time. "The plane was
destroyed, and the passengers were murdered by Bush operatives," he
solemnly revealed. "Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands
of conspirators needed to pull all this off," I retorted, "is a
whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?" My rejoinder
was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them
for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no
tales.

Following the disaster in London . . .

East Anglian Ambulance Service have launched a national "In case of
Emergency ( ICE ) " campaign with the support of Falklands war hero Simon
Weston.

The idea is that you store the word " I C E " in your mobile phone address
book, and against it enter the number of the person you would want to be
contacted "In Case of Emergency".

In an emergency situation ambulance and hospital staff will then be able to
quickly find out who your next of kin are and be able to contact them. It's
so simple that everyone can do it. Please do.

Please will you also email this to everybody in your address book, it won't
take too many 'forwards' before everybody will know about this. It really
could save your life, or put a loved one's mind at rest.

For more than one contact name ICE1, ICE2, ICE3 etc.

Even though this is a British idea it would work for anyone with a mobile
(IMHO).

ROME, July 11, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - One of the best known
English-speaking Vatican reporters, John Allen, reports that the
long-expected Vatican document calling attention to the fact that
homosexual persons are not to be admitted to the priesthood is "now in the
hands of Pope Benedict XVI". The document will come as no surprise to
Vatican watchers since Rome has previously released two official documents
barring homosexuals from the priesthood. As Allen puts it, with the new
document, the teaching won't "change, but the level of authority and
clarity" will, since the new document will be directly authorized by the
Pope.

The former Church documents make it clear that not only men who have been
sexually active as homosexuals but also those inclined to homosexual sex
would be barred from the priesthood. A 1961 document produced by the
Sacred Congregation for Religious states: "Those affected by the perverse
inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from
religious vows and ordination," because priestly ministry would place such
persons in "grave danger". (See coverage here:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/mar/02032701.html )

In a 2002 statement, Cardinal Estevez of the Congregation for Divine
Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments stated in answer to a
question by a bishop: "Ordination to the deaconate and the priesthood of
homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable
and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A
homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore,
fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." (see that full letter here:
http://www.adoremus.org/Notitiae-Ordination.html )

However, Allen suggests that some American bishops are hoping the Vatican
shelves the document since they contend it will "generate controversy and
negative press".

Last month, as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops was meeting, Chicago
Cardinal Francis George spoke on the subject. The Chicago Tribune quoted
the Cardinal as saying, "Also, anyone who has been part of a gay subculture
or who has lived promiscuously as a heterosexual would not be admitted ...
no matter how many years in his background that might have occurred."

See John Allen's 'Word from Rome' column:
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/

The awful Dawkins, himself rather blatantly dishonest, is also
largely correct in his accusations here. One can only ackn & credit such
courage as it may take for him to speak up thus - which is more than is
forthcoming from many cowardly Christians around here.

R

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,592-1619264,00.html
Weekend Review

May 21, 2005

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant

As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas,
Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: "Most
scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance
that drives them on." Science mines ignorance. Mystery - that which we
don't yet know; that which we don't yet understand - is the mother lode
that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay
mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it
gives them something to do.

Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It
is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those
constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage.
Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the
effect that creationism or "intelligent design theory" (ID) is having,
especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible
and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of
creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons,
under a new name.

It isn't even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a
rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts
of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,
could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess,
absurd in the highest degree." You will find this sentence of Charles
Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what
follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity.
Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of
the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design.
The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called "The
fortyfold Path to Enlightenment" in honour of the fact that, far from being
difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently
around the animal kingdom.

[this is highly implausible compared with the hypothesis that a
given type of eye - there are only several - has spread by transposons
- RM]

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as
saying that organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully
designed". Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the
powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The
isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on "appear to", leaving
exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience - in Kansas, for instance -
wants to hear.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda
ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But
such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious
Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is
a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical
heart of creationism.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in
nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: "If it could
be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly
have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down." Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty
in order to abuse his challenge. "Bet you can't tell me how the elbow
joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?"
If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a
default conclusion is drawn: "Right, then, the alternative theory;
'intelligent design' wins by default."

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B
must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the
scientist's rejoicing in uncertainty. Today's scientist in America dare
not say: "Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog's ancestors
did evolve their elbow joint. I'll have to go to the university library
and take a look." No, the moment a scientist said something like that the
default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet:
"Weasel frog could only have been designed by God."

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the
words: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any
evolutionary history." Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to
whet the reader's appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was
gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore "gaps" in the fossil
record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less
continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and
these are the famous "gaps". Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that
if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a "gap", the creationist will
declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default.
If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition,
the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have
intervened.

The creationists' fondness for "gaps" in the fossil record is a metaphor
for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are
filled by God. You don't know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don't
understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is
photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don't go
to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist,
don't work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them.
Don't squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is
God's gift to Kansas.

Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public
Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The
Ancestor's Tale.

This RC featured in Commonweal 35y ago but more recently has become
something of a favourite of the Noo Right. He was brought out here
several y ago by Keith Hay.

R

>http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak102802.asp
>October 28, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
>America’s Ten Commandments
>The ACLU’s mistake.
>
>After a weeklong trial, a federal court in Montgomery, Alabama, heard
>closing arguments last Wednesday (October 23) in yet one more effort by
>the American Civil Liberties Union to erase any recognition of God from
>public life in America -
>this time, to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse.
>
>All over the country, the ACLU has been filing suits like to one in
>Alabama, winning some, losing some. The oddest thing is, if the ACLU
>project of removing God from public testimony should win, their victory
>would hurt the ACLU most of all. For two reasons: The first reason is that
>a plurality of Americans holds that there are civil liberties because
>certain inalienable rights were endowed in us by our Creator. This belief
>was expressed by the Continental Congress in the carefully wrought words
>of the Declaration of Independence. Our Founders held that the same
>Creator Who gave the human race the inestimable gift of the Ten
>Commandments also gave human beings the freedom to follow them - or not.
>He also laid on them the burden of making an account to Him - and to no
>other - of how they did so.
>
>As Thomas Jefferson put it, "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at
>the same time." There are civil liberties because our Creator made us
>free. And also, responsible finally to Him.
>
>These words of Jefferson are particularly beautiful:
>Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own
>will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their own minds,
>that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his Supreme
>will that free it shall remain, by making it altogether insusceptible of
>restraint: That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or
>burthens, or by civil incapacitations ...are a departure from the plan of
>the holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet
>chose not to propagate it by either, as was in his Almighty power to do,
>but to extend it by its influence on reason alone... [A Bill for
>Establishing Religious Freedom]
>Why would the ACLU want to cut out of American consciousness the reason
>why, for a plurality of Americans, respect for civil liberties is a
>serious, even a sacred duty? Failure to observe is an offense against the
>Supreme will of God, and answerable on the last day before an undeceivable
>Judge?
>
>But the second reason why the ACLU is committing suicide runs even deeper.
>The reason why there is religious liberty, or at least the sole reason
>given by three crucial Founding documents on the subject — the Virginia
>Declaration of Rights, the Virginia Statute for the Establishment of
>Religious Liberty, and James Madison's famous and eloquent Remonstrance —
>is this rare and precious conception: That prior to any obligation to the
>state, prior even to any obligation to civil society (prior both in time
>and in degree of importance), is the inalienable communion between the
>individual and the Creator, to Whom the human being owes a duty precedent
>to any he owes state or civil society. This duty cannot be fulfilled by
>any other than each individual, one by one. For each person, it is
>inalienable.
>
>This inalienable relation between the individual and the Creator is the
>ground and foundation of the right to religious liberty, and through that
>first right, of all the other civil rights and liberties. From that
>human-divine relation emanates the spiritual power of the ACLU.
>
>A DEEPER, MORE SURPRISING TURN
>
>However, a deeper and more surprising turn in our reflections must now be
>taken. The conception of a Creator is specific only to a tiny handful of
>the world religions. The conception of a Creator Who demands to be
>recognized "in spirit and in truth," and not simply by outward actions
>(burning incense, bending the knee, reciting sacred formulae, performing
>certain ritual actions such as pilgrimages or prostrations, etc.) is
>specific to even fewer. The conception of a Creator Who, in addition, made
>every individual free, and glories in the friendship of free women and
>free men, seems in fact to be limited only to two: to Judaism and its
>offspring, Christianity.
>
>It is probably true that the Ten Commandments are, with due regard for a
>modest pluralism of nuance and emphasis and interpretation, universal and
>recognized among all peoples everywhere. Even more strikingly than that,
>all ten of them, especially the last five or six, appear to have been
>reached in many places by the exercise of reason itself, without
>revelation. That stealing, murder, lying, and bearing false witness, and
>acting out of covetousness are universally condemned in all world
>literatures is fairly obvious. But even the first three or four
>commandments have been arrived at by reason alone.
>
>Thus, for those who form a sufficiently high notion of God, it is also
>obvious that putting false idols in His place, worshiping as God something
>that is not God, or mocking and blaspheming Him or His name, are stupid
>acts of ignorance, arrogance, and pretension among mere mortals, who are
>like the grass of the fields, here today and tomorrow forgotten.
>
>Nonetheless, the particular relation between the Creator and the
>individual imagined by the American Founders, and by them made part of the
>narrative history within which the conception of rights gains traction in
>our daily lives, is special to Judaism and Christianity. Just possibly, it
>is also compatible with Islam, that other religion of an almighty, eternal
>Creator of all things. So far, however, no Muslim thinker has come forward
>to explain how Islam understands human liberty. And all the other civil,
>political, and religious rights embodied in the American way of life, and
>put into words in its Founding documents. How does Islam ground those
>rights, in a way comparable to the arguments put forward by George Mason,
>Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison mentioned above?
>
>According to our own documentary history, the American conception and
>practice of religious liberty (and the grounding of our other civil and
>political rights) depends upon the relation between the human individual,
>female and male, and the Creator of all things, as presented by the Jewish
>and Christian traditions, and by no other tradition in quite that same
>way. Not even Thomas Hobbes and John Locke ground their conceptions of
>natural right in quite the same way as Mason, Jefferson, and Madison do.
>True, these Americans, especially Jefferson, knew some of the works of
>Locke well, and learned many turns of thought and expression from him. And
>why not?
>
>Locke often expressed himself in the full-dress language of a believer in
>the Jewish and Christian traditions. Yet perhaps even more so than Locke,
>the innermost convictions of many if not most of the early American
>patriots were fired by religious conscience. The flames of revolt against
>kingly abusiveness were fed by the Puritan and evangelical preachers. For
>this reason, the American documents hewed even more closely than Locke to
>a Jewish-Christian conception of the main narrative line of human history:
>The Creator made humans to be free, and to make freedom prevail, against
>the many formidable obstacles it encounters in "the long course of human
>events."
>
>In this respect, James Madison's sketch of the relation between the
>individual and its Lord and Creator, in the inner arena of conscience,
>calls to mind the first two propositions of the Ten Commandments: "I am
>the Lord thy God." The individual needs for a moment to let that sink in.
>
>Then the next proposition follows ineluctably: "Thou shalt have no other
>gods before me."
>
>Contained in these two lines is the metaphysical narrative that undergirds
>the principle of limited government. No absolute power, or absolutist
>government, can be allowed to prevail. Any such pretense is an idol,
>usurping the place that belongs to God alone. To God alone, each
>individual owes the allegiance of an inalienable conscience, which can be
>exercised by no other person whatever (not by mother nor father, not by
>brother nor sister, but only by that individual alone). That duty to the
>Creator is precedent to any duty to the state or even to civil society. In
>short, our right to religious liberty cannot be abridged by any state or
>civil society or any other human power whatever. Here is how Madison
>expresses this truth:
>
>It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such
>only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both
>in the order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil
>Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he
>must be considered as a subject of the Governour [sic] of the Universe.
>[Remonstrance, para.1].
>
>The next Commandment reads: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
>image." Benjamin Franklin gave this proposition a practical twist in his
>proposal for the official motto of the United States: "Rebellion to
>tyrants is obedience to God."
>
>The next is: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
>Commander-in-chief George Washington issued as one of his first written
>orders to the Continental Army that there must not be any swearing or any
>blasphemy in the ranks, lest the Army's firm reliance on Divine Providence
>be compromised and the trust of the People in their Army scandalized. He
>also commanded his troops to begin every morning with a prayer, their
>officers present in formation, a chaplain having been assigned to each unit.
>
>After the war, Washington frequently drew attention to, and commended
>public gratitude for "the many signal interventions of Divine Providence"
>in the course of the war. Among these, ever fresh in his mind, were the
>seemingly miraculous turns on his behalf in the battles of Long Island and
>Monmouth.
>
>MEETING THREE CONDITIONS
>
>The singular advantage of the Jewish-Christian conception of the relation
>between the Creator and his human subjects is that it allows for three
>things at once: the freedom of the individual conscience; a freedom
>ordered to law ("Confirm thy soul in self-control/Thy liberty in law") and
>social unity; and, third, a comfortable pluralism, in which diverse
>communities live in unity, with the free exercise of conscience. This is
>an original conception, a new order without precedent on the face of the
>globe, as Madison justly observed in Federalist #14.
>Although this conception may be articulated and defended in more than one
>way, its particular historical origins in the specific religious
>traditions of early America, frequently recurred to, maintain a remarkable
>and continuing vitality. Furthermore, without requiring newcomers or
>imitators in other lands to become Jews or Christians, or to confess any
>one faith, these distinctive traditions open the blessings of liberty to
>all. We can pay homage to their specific origins without being forced to
>make a confession of faith in those traditions. Few are the historical
>conceptions so open to sharing their best fruits with others of different
>faiths.
>
>More impressively still, the early American religions and their attachment
>to common sense managed to launch a form of pluralism that does not depend
>upon relativism — "anything goes" and "all opinions are equally valid" —
>while still honoring freedom of conscience. They did so by recognizing
>that each soul is in a constant dialog with its Creator, learning and
>advancing by its own lights, in its own time. No one else has the right to
>intrude coercively into that sacred conversation. One keen reason for
>religious liberty is that every soul needs room for that wrestling match,
>that long journey.
>
>The texture of the American trust in the ultimate victory of liberty and
>the unshakeable foundation of our rights, from religious liberty to all
>the others, is knit through and through with the laws of the human
>universe announced by Governor of the Universe, and honored by our
>forebears throughout our history.
>
>DEFYING REASON
>
>Tearing the tangible recollection of these laws from our daily sight in
>courthouses and elsewhere is an act of unparalleled and suicidal
>blindness. It can be accounted for only by ideological rage, not by
>rational self interest.
>
>Even those who do not believe in God should be able to see that many of
>their fellow citizens do hold such a belief. Moreover, these others hold
>certain important political truths to be self evident because, in the
>context of their belief in a God Who offers them friendship, other truths
>about life and liberty become clear to them. To help these others to lose
>a vivid memory of this Source of their rights is to help them treat these
>rights as less than sacred, as mere ideological opinions like any others.
>
>Why would the ACLU desire an outcome like that?
>
>And why would they take a position so flatly contrary to that of George
>Mason, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other Founders?
>The current tactics of the ACLU defy reason.
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak102802.asp

Finding Design in Nature -- NY Times OP ED
By CHRISTOPH SCHÖNBORN

Published: July 7, 2005

Vienna -- EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a
term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of
neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at
least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their
theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many
details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of
reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and
design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in
the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random
variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that
denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in
biology is ideology, not science.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather
vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere
cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general
audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a
similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks
to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal
finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in
a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one
to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."

He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator,
some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To
speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization
in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be
equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it
appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects
without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would
thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."
Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term
synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another
general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the
truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of
materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an
evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."
Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees:
"Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the
question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with
certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We
believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the
product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."
In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists
recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied
evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a
2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out
that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that
the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used
by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of
the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on
the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the
commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket
approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a
neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any
truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."
Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary
process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply
cannot exist."

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict
proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.
Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each
of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by
Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd
position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th
century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the
"death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know
the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the
philosophers.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims
like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to
avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern
science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming
that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories
that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance
and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an
abdication of human intelligence.

Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was
the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church

Followup article on front page of NY Times, July 9, 2005

An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been
regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that
belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with
Catholic faith.

The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who
is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article
in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of
common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense -
an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection -
is not."

In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on
retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the
Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI's election
in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about
the church's position on evolution. "I said I would like to have a more
explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on," said
Cardinal Schönborn.

He said that he had been "angry" for years about writers and theologians,
many Catholics, who he said had "misrepresented" the church's position as
endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process.

Opponents of Darwinian evolution said they were gratified by Cardinal
Schönborn's essay. But scientists and science teachers reacted with
confusion, dismay and even anger. Some said they feared the cardinal's
sentiments would cause religious scientists to question their faiths.
Cardinal Schönborn, who is on the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic
Education, said the office had no plans to issue new guidance to teachers
in Catholic schools on evolution. But he said he believed students in
Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just
one of many theories. Many Catholic schools teach Darwinian evolution, in
which accidental mutation and natural selection of the fittest organisms
drive the history of life, as part of their science curriculum.
Darwinian evolution is the foundation of modern biology. While
researchers may debate details of how the mechanism of evolution plays
out, there is no credible scientific challenge to the underlying theory.
American Catholics and conservative evangelical Christians have been a
potent united front in opposing abortion, stem cell research and
euthanasia, but had parted company on the death penalty and the teaching
of evolution. Cardinal Schönborn's essay and comments are an indication
that the church may now enter the debate over evolution more forcefully on
the side of those who oppose the teaching of evolution alone.
One of the strongest advocates of teaching alternatives to evolution is
the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which promotes the idea, termed
intelligent design, that the variety and complexity of life on earth
cannot be explained except through the intervention of a designer of some
sort.

Mark Ryland, a vice president of the institute, said in an interview that
he had urged the cardinal to write the essay. Both Mr. Ryland and
Cardinal Schönborn said that an essay in May in The Times about the
compatibility of religion and evolutionary theory by Lawrence M. Krauss, a
physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, suggested to
them that it was time to clarify the church's position on evolution.
The cardinal's essay was submitted to The Times by a Virginia public
relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, which also represents the
Discovery Institute.

Mr. Ryland, who said he knew the cardinal through the International
Theological Institute in Gaming, Austria, where he is chancellor and Mr.
Ryland is on the board, said supporters of intelligent design were "very
excited" that a church leader had taken a position opposing Darwinian
evolution. "It clarified that in some sense the Catholics aren't fine with
it," he said.

Bruce Chapman, the institute's president, said the cardinal's essay "helps
blunt the claims" that the church "has spoken on Darwinian evolution in a
way that's supportive."

But some biologists and others said they read the essay as abandoning
longstanding church support for evolutionary biology.

"How did the Discovery Institute talking points wind up in Vienna?"
wondered Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science
Education, which advocates the teaching of evolution. "It really did look
quite a bit as if Cardinal Schönborn had been reading their Web pages."
Mr. Ryland said the cardinal was well versed on these issues and had
written the essay on his own.

Dr. Francis Collins, who headed the official American effort to decipher
the human genome, and who describes himself as a Christian, though not a
Catholic, said Cardinal Schönborn's essay looked like "a step in the wrong
direction" and said he feared that it "may represent some backpedaling from
what scientifically is a very compelling conclusion, especially now that
we have the ability to study DNA."

"There is a deep and growing chasm between the scientific and the
spiritual world views," he went on. "To the extent that the cardinal's
essay makes believing scientists less and less comfortable inhabiting the
middle ground, it is unfortunate. It makes me uneasy."
"Unguided," "unplanned," "random" and "natural" are all adjectives that
biologists might apply to the process of evolution, said Dr. Kenneth R.
Miller, a professor of biology at Brown and a Catholic. But even so, he
said, evolution "can fall within God's providential plan." He added:
"Science cannot rule it out. Science cannot speak on this."

Dr. Miller, whose book "Finding Darwin's God" describes his reconciliation
of evolutionary theory with Christian faith, said the essay seemed to
equate belief in evolution with disbelief in God. That is alarming, he
said. "It may have the effect of convincing Catholics that evolution is
something they should reject."

Dr. Collins and other scientists said they could understand why a cleric
might want to make the case that, as Dr. Collins put it, "evolution is the
mechanism by which human beings came into existence, but God had something
to do with that, too." Dr. Collins said that view, theistic evolution,
"is shared with a very large number of biologists who also believe in God,
including me."

But it does not encompass the idea that the workings of evolution required
the direct intervention of a supernatural agent, as intelligent design
would have it.

In his essay, Cardinal Schönborn asserted that he was not trying to break
new ground but to correct the idea, "often invoked," that the church
accepts or at least acquiesces to the theory of evolution.
He referred to widely cited remarks by Pope John Paul II, who, in a 1996
address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, noted that the scientific
case for evolution was growing stronger and that the theory was "more than
a hypothesis."

In December, Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo, chairman of the Committee on
Science and Human Values of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, cited those remarks in writing to the nation's bishops that "the
Church does not need to fear the teaching of evolution as long as it is
understood as a scientific account of the physical origins and development
of the universe." But in his essay, Cardinal Schönborn dismissed John
Paul's statement as "rather vague and unimportant."

Francisco Ayala, a professor of biology at the University of California,
Irvine, and a former Dominican priest, called this assessment "an insult"
to the late pope and said the cardinal seemed to be drawing a line between
the theory of evolution and religious faith, and "seeing a conflict that
does not exist."

Dr. Miller said he was already hearing from people worried about the
cardinal's essay. "People are saying, does the church really believe
this?" He said he would not speculate. "John Paul II made it very clear
that he regarded scientific rationality as a gift from God," Dr. Miller
said, adding, "There are more than 100 cardinals and they often have
conflicting opinions."

This just in as I acquire Rev Derrick Sherwin Bailey 'Homosexuality
and the Western Christian Tradition' (Longmans 1955, 180 pp.) . He had
then been for 4 y Central Lecturer for the Church of England Moral Welfare
Council. He says (p. xi)

" ... some have concluded that there exists a third type,
the so-called "bisexual"; but this is very doubtful. It seems to be an
inference from observations of sexual behaviour ... "

R

FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2573

ACTION ALERT:
New York Times Suggests Bisexuals Are "Lying"
Paper fails to disclose study author's controversial history

July 8, 2005

In a lead article in the New York Times' July 5 Science section,
headlined, "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited,"
Times writer
Benedict Carey reported that an upcoming study "casts doubt on
whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men." In suggesting
that men who claim a bisexual sexual orientation are liars, the Times
relies heavily on a single study whose senior researcher has a career
marked by ethics controversies and eugenics proposals--facts that
were not presented to readers.

According to the Times, the study "lends support to those who have
long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual
orientation. People who claim bisexuality, according to these
critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their
homosexuality or simply closeted. 'You're either gay, straight or
lying,' as some gay men have put it."

In leaping to dramatic conclusions from a single study with a small
population, Carey echoes the study's authors, who seem equally eager
to generalize from scant evidence--and to confuse the study's
assumptions with its conclusions. Carey quotes the study's senior
author, J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, who
acknowledges that bisexual behavior exists, but argues that "in men
there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men
arousal is orientation."

But that arousal equals orientation seems to be assumed, not proven.
The study measured men's self-identified orientation against their
physical arousal while watching various kinds of pornography;
bisexual men's self-identified orientation did not correspond with
their physical arousal, according to the study, with some being
aroused much more by on-screen men and a smaller group responding
much more to on-screen women.

This finding could just as easily be read as evidence that arousal in
bisexual men does *not* equal orientation--that simple measurement of
arousal does not predict people's behavior or identity. But the Times
reporter himself uses the phrase "true bisexuality," which suggests
that people with bisexual behavior and identity might still not
qualify as "true" bisexuals.

Well into Carey's piece, some cautionary or critical viewpoints were
aired. None of those viewpoints, however, gave readers any hint of
Bailey's controversial history. In 2001 Bailey co-authored an article
that argued that, if it became possible for parents to determine the
sexual orientation of their fetus, "selecting for heterosexuality
seems to be morally acceptable.... Selection for heterosexuality may
tangibly benefit parents, children and their families and seems to
have only a slight potential for any significant harm" (Archives of
Sexual Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2001). The fact that a researcher
has promoted the eugenic elimination of homosexuality would seem to
be relevant background for gauging the credibility of his studies of
bisexuality.

Bailey more recently came under fire for his 2003 book, "The Man Who
Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism,"
which defended the discredited theory that transsexual women are not
female-gendered people born with male bodies, but "are extremely
feminine gay men or are sexual fetishists who are 'erotically
obsessed with the image of themselves as women'" (Chronicle of Higher
Education, 12/10/04). Bailey profiled a handful of transsexual women
for his book, many of whom filed complaints against him for not
getting their consent to be studied (Times Higher Education
Supplement, 5/28/04).

The book shares remarkable similarities to Bailey's new study on
bisexuality: In both, the researcher denies people's own evaluation
of their identities, suggesting that bisexuals and transgender people
are lying about who they are.

In fact, the Times' headline could have been taken from the press
release for Bailey's book, which was headlined, "Gay, Straight, or
Lying? Science Has the Answer." A new study by the same author,
peddling a very similar theory, should have been a red flag to
journalists, and readers should have been informed of the author's
controversial history in order for them to better evaluate the study.

When the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation asked the Times to
retract its inflammatory headline, the paper argued that "gay,
straight or lying" is "a commonly used phrase among many gay people"
(GLAAD.org, 7/7/05). It's unclear why a derogatory stereotype about
one group--bisexuals--should be more acceptable in a headline because
it is attributed to another group--gay people.

ACTION: Please ask the Times' new public editor, Byron Calame, to
examine the Times' report on bisexuality, particularly the lack of
relevant information about the senior researcher's controversial
background and the headline's suggestion that an entire sexual
minority is "lying."

CONTACT:
New York Times
Byron Calame, Public Editor
mailto:public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652

As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
maintain a polite tone.

Read the Times article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html

This article is notable for being written by a self-declared
irreligious Yank. Why does it take such a person to say what's needed?
Why is mainstream Christianity so feeble?

R



Scary Stuff
April 28, 2005

This column was written by Stanley Kurtz.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harper's Magazine's May cover stories about "The Christian Right's War On America," frightened me, although not the way Harper's meant them to. I fear these stories could mark the beginning of a systematic campaign of hatred directed at traditional Christians. Whether this is what Harper's intends, I cannot say. But regardless of the intention, the effect seems clear.

The phrase "campaign of hatred" is a strong one, and I worry about amplifying an already dangerous dynamic of recrimination on both sides of the culture wars. I don't doubt that conservatives, Christian and otherwise, are sometimes guilty of rhetorical excess. Yet despite what we've been told, the most extreme political rhetoric of our day is being directed against traditional Christians by the left.

It's been said that James Dobson overstepped legitimate bounds when he compared activist judges to the Ku Klux Klan. Yes, that was an ill-considered remark. I hope and expect it will not be repeated. But Dobson made that comparison extemporaneously and in passing. If that misstep was such a problem, what are we to make of a cover story in Harper's that systematically identifies conservative Christianity with fascism? According to Harper's, conservative Christians are making "war on America." Can you imagine the reaction to a cover story about a "war on America" by blacks, gays, Hispanics, or Jews? Then there's Frank Rich's April 24New York Times op-ed comparing conservative Christians to George Wallace, segregationists, and lynch mobs.

These comparisons are both inflammatory and mistaken. Made in the name of opposing hatred, they license hatred. It was disturbing enough during the election when even the most respectable spokesmen on the left proudly proclaimed their hatred of president Bush. Out of that hatred flowed pervasive, if low-level, violence. I fear that Bush hatred is now being channeled into hatred of Christian conservatives. The process began after the election and is steadily growing worse. This hatred of conservative Christians isn't new, but it is being fanned to a fever pitch.

Chris Hedges, who wrote one of the Harper's cover pieces, is a former reporter for the New York Times and a popular author among those who oppose the Iraq war. Hedges's article will be noticed on the Left. I fear it will set the tone for a powerful new anti-Christian rhetoric. The article's entitled "Feeling the Hate with the National Religious Broadcasters." If you still don't get it, notice the picture juxtaposing a cross with an attack dog. Of course, reducing America's most popular Christian broadcasters to a hate group is itself a way of inviting hatred.

Hedges is worried about extreme Christian theocrats called "Dominionists." He's got little to say about who these Dominionists are, and he qualifies his vague characterizations by noting in passing that not all Dominionists would accept the label or admit their views publicly. That little move allows Hedges to paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless "Dominionist" Christian mass. Hedges seems to be worried that the United States is just a few short steps away from having apostasy, blasphemy, sodomy, and witchcraft declared capital crimes. Compare this liberal fantasy of imminent theocracy to the reality of Lawrence v. Texas and Roper v. Simmons (the Supreme Court decision that appealed to European precedents to overturn capital punishment for juveniles).

Both of these decisions relied on the existence of a supposed national consensus on behalf of social liberalism. In conjuring up that false consensus, the Court treated conservative Christians as effectively nonexistent. That is the reality of where the law is, and where it is headed. It is completely unsurprising that after a long train of such decisions, conservative Christians have decided they're tired of being trampled on by the courts. The reality we face is judicially imposed same-sex marriage in opposition to the clearly expressed wishes of the American people. Yet to cover its imperial judicial agenda, the Left is now concocting nonsensical fantasies of theocratically imposed capital punishment for witchcraft. Yes, witchcraft is back. Only now traditional Christians have been cast in the role of devious enemies who need to be ferreted out by society's defenders.

Hedges invokes the warnings of his old Harvard professor against "Christian fascists." Supposedly, Christians carrying crosses and chanting the Pledge of Allegiance are the new Hitlers. The Left is loathe to treat Islamic terrorists as moral reprobates, but when it comes to conservative Christians, Hedges calls on his fellow liberals to renounce their relativist scruples and acknowledge "the power and allure of evil."

Hedges needn't worry. For a very long time now, secular liberals have treated conservative Christians as the modern embodiment of evil, the one group you're allowed to openly hate. Although barely noticed by the rest of us, this poison has been floating through our political system for decades. Traditional Christians are tired of it, and I don't blame them. That doesn't justify rhetorical excess from either side. But the fact of the matter is that the Left's rhetorical attacks on conservative Christians have long been more extreme, more widely disseminated, and more politically effective than whatever the Christians have been hurling back. And now that their long ostracism by the media has finally forced conservative Christians to demand redress, the Left has abandoned all rhetorical restraint.

Of course,Harper's has every right to accuse conservative Christians of making war on America, to treat them as a hate group, to warn us that conservative Christians are the new fascists, and to invite us to battle their supposedly Hitler-like evil. Certainly it would be folly to try to control this kind of anti-religious rhetoric legislatively. But I do believe the Harper's attack on traditional Christians is dangerous, unfair, and extreme -- far more so than Dobson's rhetorical slip. The way to handle the Harper's matter is to expose it and condemn it. Or is that sort of public complaint reserved for Dobson alone?


Meanwhile, asHarper's levels vicious attacks on conservative Christians, the California assembly has passed a bill designed to prevent politicians from using "anti-gay rhetoric" in their political campaigns. Opposition to same-sex marriage itself is considered by many to be "anti-gay." So has public opposition to same-sex marriage been legislatively banned? As a secular American, I don't personally see homosexuality as sinful. Like many Americans, I welcome the increased social tolerance for homosexuality we've seen since the 1950s. Yet it's outrageous to ban political speech by Christians who do sincerely understand homosexuality to be a sin.

Along with the move toward same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and Canada, we've seen systematic efforts to criminalize and silence expressions of the traditional Christian understanding of homosexuality. We've been told that the American tradition of free speech will prevent that sort of abuse here. Yet now, California's battle for same-sex marriage is calling forth legislation that takes us way too far down the path toward banning the expression of traditional Christian views. While Harper's is spinning out fantasies of a Christian theocracy, the California state legislature gives us the reality of a secular autocracy.

The companion piece to the Hedges article inHarper's is a long report by Jeffrey Sharlet on Christian conservatives in Colorado. Sharlet notes the conviction of these Christians that they're being turned into "outcasts in their own land." He treats the notion that traditional Christians need to flee the urban centers of Blue America as a paranoid fantasy. Well, California's latest attempt to control political speech shows the fears are real. And what happens to traditional Christians who refuse to flee the cities? King's College, a quality Christian school that's decided to move from the countryside to the heart of New York City, is about to be destroyed by the New York State Board of Regents. It's hard to see in this move anything other than anti-Christian bias.

Conservative Christians have good reason to fear cultural ostracism. The mere expression of their core religious views is being legislated against. The courts have banned traditional morality as a basis for law and have turned instead to secular Europe for guidance. Traditional Christians can't even set up a college in New York City. And now Harper's is calling them evil fascists. Yes, conservative Christians have the ear of the president and of the Republican leadership -- you bet they do. Given the way they're being treated in the culture at large, they'd be fools not to protect themselves by turning to politics.

Yet traditional Christians are playing defense, not offense. Harper's speaks of a "new militant Christianity." But if Christians are increasingly bold and political, they've been forced into that mode by 40 years of revolutionary social reforms. David Brooks has already explained how Roe v. Wade unnecessarily polarized the country, making it impossible for religious conservatives to have a voice in ordinary political give and take. We're still paying the price for that liberal judicial arrogance.


Now judicial imposition of same-sex marriage has poured fuel on the fire. When Frank Rich compares conservative Christians to segregationist bigots, when Chris Hedges compares conservative Christians to evil fascist supporters of Hitler, it's the Christian understanding of homosexuality that's driving the wild rhetoric. None of the American Founders would have approved of same-sex marriage, yet suddenly we're expected to equate opposition to gay marriage with Hitler's genocidal persecutions.

Last Sunday'sNew York Times gave us a clear explanation of the Catholic Church's understanding of sexuality. The Catholic position rests on the idea that there is a special tie between marriage, motherhood, and sexuality. Now there's room to differ on the nature and extent of the links between parenthood, marriage, and sexuality. Traditional Catholics will see the matter differently from traditional Protestants, who in turn will see things differently from secular social conservatives. Whatever your view on how marriage, sexuality, and parenthood ought to be related, there can be little doubt that important social consequences will follow -- and have followed -- from how we handle these issues. We can argue about whether same-sex marriage will strengthen or weaken the family, but the debate itself is, or ought to be, necessary and legitimate.

Yet to much of the mainstream media, the complicated question of how society should structure the relationship between sexuality and the family has been reduced to an all-or-nothing choice between bigotry and freedom. The overreach of this sort of intolerant secular liberalism is the real source of our cultural battles. The drive for same-sex marriage has been every bit as much of a political disaster for this country as the ill-conceived conflict over abortion. The mistake was to frame the debate as a fight against bigotry instead of as a tough decision about how to structure our most fundamental social institution. On same-sex marriage, the Left took the easy way out -- not only using the courts to make an end-run around the public, but deliberately framing the issue in a way designed to silence and stigmatize all opposition.

Now we see the results of this terrible decision. Traditional Christians are openly excoriated in the mainstream press as evil, fascist, segregationist bigots. Their political speech is placed under legislative threat. Their institutions of higher education are attacked and destroyed. Naturally, America's traditional Christians are fighting back. They've turned to the political process in hopes of securing for themselves a space in which to exist. Weary of being the butt of hatred by those who proclaim tolerance, conservative Christians are complaining, with justice, about the all-too-successful attempts to exclude them from society.

If "Dominionists" try to force all Americans to pay church tithes, or call for the execution of blasphemers and witches, I will oppose them. But that is not the danger we face. The real danger is that a growing campaign of hatred against traditional Christians by secular liberals will deepen an already dangerous conflict. The solution is to continue our debates, but to change their framing. Conservative Christians cannot stop complaining of exclusion and prejudice until cultural liberals pare back their own excesses. Let's stop treating honest differences on same-sex marriage as simple bigotry. Let's stop using the courts as a way around democratic decision-making. Let's stop trying to criminalize religious expression. Let's allow Christians to establish their own institutions of higher learning. And let's stop calling traditional Christians fascists. It would be nice if the folks complaining about "Justice Sunday" addressed these issues as well.

Stanley Kurtz is a contributing editor to NRO.

By Stanley Kurtz
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.

G Scott my man

>The Daily Telegraph quotes two sources, both official. One is the Ministry
>of Defence (UK), the other the Equal Opportunities Commission. The survey
>covered all three of the Armed Forces. The British Army said 12 per cent of
>its gals had complained of sexual harassment while the RAF gave a figure of
>nine per cent.

These complaint rates are, while dismaying wrt prospects of
effective ops, only half of those alleged for the R.N.

The reasons for the differences should be investigated.

>From this you may draw one of two conclusions:
>(a) The Navy girls are either far more physically attractive than their
>sisters in the Army and RAF;
>(b) The lassies in bell bottom trousers are all raving nymphomaniacs!
>
>On the other side of the coin it may be that hairy-chested sailors are
>sexual predators.

I can imagine the procurement of the complaint figures may have
been more enthusiastic in the RN. I fancy the RNZN has a more
hypertrophied procurement network ...

R

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robt Mann"
>To: "g-howard"
>Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 07:06
>Subject: Re: Sheilas RN
>
>
>>>The Daily Telegraph, London, tells me 22 per cent of all women
>>>currently serving in the Royal Navy have complained of sexual
>harassment.

The Independent
8 July 2005

If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us think
insurgency won't come to us?

"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his
recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they
say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since
Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his
invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit
was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will
never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not
trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get
public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his
alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's
policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their
support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved
that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the
Australians were made to suffer in Bali.

It is easy for Tony Blair to call yesterdays bombings "barbaric" -
of course they were - but what were the civilian deaths of the
Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart
by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at
American military checkpoints? When they die, it is "collateral
damage"; when "we" die, it is "barbaric terrorism".

If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us believe
insurgency won't come to us? One thing is certain: if Tony Blair
really believes that by "fighting terrorism" in Iraq we could more
efficiently protect Britain - fight them there rather than let
them come here, as Bush constantly says - this argument is no
longer valid.

To time these bombs with the G8 summit, when the world was
concentrating on Britain, was not a stroke of genius. You don't
need a PhD to choose another Bush-Blair handshake to close down a
capital city with explosives and massacre more than 30 of its
citizens. The G8 summit was announced so far in advance as to give
the bombers all the time they needed to prepare.

A co-ordinated system of attacks of the kind we saw yesterday
would have taken months to plan - to choose safe houses, prepare
explosives, identify targets, ensure security, choose the bombers,
the hour, the minute, to plan the communications (mobile phones
are giveaways). Co-ordination and sophisticated planning - and the
usual utter ruthlessness with regard to the lives of the innocent
- are characteristic of al-Qa'ida. And let us not use - as our
television colleagues did yesterday - "hallmarks", a word
identified with quality silver rather than base metal.

And now let us reflect on the fact that yesterday, the opening of
the G8, so critical a day, so bloody a day, represented a total
failure of our security services - the same intelligence "experts"
who claim there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when
there were none, but who utterly failed to uncover a months-long
plot to kill Londoners.

Trains, planes, buses, cars, metros. Transportation appears to be
the science of al-Qa'ida's dark arts. No one can search three
million London commuters every day. No one can stop every tourist.
Some thought the Eurostar might have been an al-Qa'ida target - be
sure they have studied it - but why go for prestige when your
common or garden bus and Tube train are there for the taking.

And then come the Muslims of Britain, who have long been awaiting
this nightmare. Now every one of our Muslims becomes the "usual
suspect", the man or woman with brown eyes, the man with the
beard, the woman in the scarf, the boy with the worry beads, the
girl who says she's been racially abused.

I remember, crossing the Atlantic on 11 September 2001 - my plane
turned round off Ireland when the US closed its airspace - how the
aircraft purser and I toured the cabins to see if we could
identify any suspicious passengers. I found about a dozen, of
course, totally innocent men who had brown eyes or long beards or
who looked at me with "hostility". And sure enough, in just a few
seconds, Osama bin Laden turned nice, liberal, friendly Robert
into an anti-Arab racist.

And this is part of the point of yesterday's bombings: to divide
British Muslims from British non-Muslims (let us not mention the
name Christians), to encourage the very kind of racism that Tony
Blair claims to resent.

But here's the problem. To go on pretending that Britain's enemies
want to destroy "what we hold dear" encourages racism; what we are
confronting here is a specific, direct, centralised attack on
London as a result of a "war on terror" which Lord Blair of Kut
al-Amara has locked us into. Just before the US presidential
elections, Bin Laden asked: "Why do we not attack Sweden?"

Lucky Sweden. No Osama bin Laden there. And no Tony Blair

>Terrorism: When ends justify means.
>
>Perhaps only small differences determine whether a theology or ideology
>produces violence, corruption and tyranny, or produces instead, as Tony
>Blair called it last night, civilization's respect for the innocent.

You'd have got on well with those clever nuisances Hume and B
Russell. You may vaguely imagine some spectrum of merit in theologies &
ideologies, but that is abstract theorizing, contrary to fact.

Only one theology - Christianity - offers a basis for a decent
society, a kind of effortless byproduct of the work of the Holy Spirit in
building the Kingdom of God in the only biosphere we know of.

Far-sighted Christians, notably Prince Charles, build bridges to
those wings of Islam capable of civilised discussion. And the third main
monotheistic theology, Judaism, is also (we pray) to be in closer alliance
with Christianity. But the tolerance of Baha'i is far too excessive. Let
alone the many-gods of Hindu or diminished god of Buddhism.

Therefore a state that has organised to implement Christian ethics
thru a British-style legal system should conserve its crucial features -
as you have generally propounded in Parlt. But this cannot be done unless
the religion that gave rise to the system is suitably active in its
maintenance & revision.

The Marshall/Nash attempt to implement Christian ethics thru
secular law did well for a few decades but is now crumbling, assailed by
selfishness & greed (the forces accorded credit by the traitor Douglas for
powering successful markets and therefore good resource allocations). To
repair & renew the mixed economy will require more influence from church
leaders. As an Anglican in good standing I am embarrassed that Messrs
Tamaki inc get presented by the media as speaking for Christianity, when my
own bishop has far less to offer. But anyhow I am sure Christian revival
is needed for political progress.

I hope therefore that you will lay aside the Hume-type theorising
about bulk theologies & ideologies of similar merit. Reality is pleasantly
simpler. I attach some succint outlines.

cheers

R

Causes in Biology

L. R. B. Mann

Presented abbreviated as a lecture to the symposium 'Science and Christianity'
to honour Harold Turner & John Morton, Auckland 01-4-21.
pub. in L R B Mann (ed) 'Science & Christianity'

University of Auckland Centre for Continuing Education 2001

267p pbk, with 14 illustrations ISBN 0-86869-009-0
pp. 105 - 119

This paper has been written in cooperation with Neil Broom over the past several years, inspired by one small part of John Morton's 1972 book 'Man, Science and God' .

The four categories of cause, identified by Aristotle and little challenged for 2.3 millennia, have rarely been taught to science students. Two of the four are simply ignored today by the leading proponents of scientism such as Richard Dawkins, Lewis Wolpert, and Steven Weinberg. We suggest that Professor Morton's 1972 exposition of the 4 causes offers neglected potential to improve science and Christianity, e.g. by clarifying that murky, confused scene the theology of evolution.

The 'enlightenment' assumption that science can, and soon will, give an essentially complete description and explanation of the physical (including biological) world had become widely influential, though little discussed, when we were science students. Since then, the limits of science and its proper interactions with other domains of knowledge have continued to be widely ignored. And even within science, little attention is directed to the question of what the word 'explanation' means.

Scientism is thus crudely asserted by mere implication, but not discussed. Scientism - faith in science as the "only" way of knowledge - has been in the ascendant for most of the time since the early 18th C. and has lately dominated scientific education by default. It is this last-mentioned aspect to which we most strenuously object. To neglect all mention of final cause is not good education (nor good philosophy); but to do so without any discussion is downright crude if not dishonest.

The term 'evolution' means the appearance of new life-forms - new species and bigger categories genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom - over time . The idea that no new species have been created since the 6th day tends toward deism, which we reject in favour of theism. We believe God created the universe out of nothing but did not then cast it adrift like some wound-up clockwork toy; He also has sustained it from moment to moment over 1010y. Christians concentrate on the spiritual sustenance from God through prayer, sacraments, etc., but have accorded less attention to God's maintenance of the Garden for us to live in as His stewards while praising Him (that is what we are here for). One among the several senses in which John Morton's life has been dedicated & productive is his tireless advocacy that we conserve this, the only biosphere we know of, which God not only created & sustains but also lived in briefly as a man to inaugurate the Kingdom of God on Earth. The failure of modern man to conserve ecosystems remains one of the most distressing aspects of modern life, but somewhat less so for Mort's staunch advocacy of applied ecology.

Our care, or neglect, of the biosphere will depend on what we believe about how and why it came to be. What can be discerned about the process by which its creation has occurred over time? Fig. 1 shows its time-frame and main catastrophic ice-ages (which appear to have been usually followed by surges of new life-forms). Fig. 2 summarises the main facts of evolution as known from the fossil record .

Science has inferred from a large body of observations that life appeared on our planet as blue-green algae 3 x 109 year BC, complex animals 1 x 109y, mammals 2 x 108y, and man somewhere in the region 106 -105 y BC. Evolution has certainly occurred, in the sense that new life-forms have appeared (mostly in bursts) over billions of years. However, evidence for descent from one to another is much sparser than is often assumed, and is difficult to come by. Many links are missing from the fossil record found to date.

This proliferation of increasingly complex life-forms over time requires explanation - ascription of causes - beyond what has become standard evolution theory viz. random mutation, natural selection, genetics, and population dynamics - the four lines of scientific thinking which have been synthesised into neo-Darwinism. Dogged refusal to discuss is a main mark of ideologies as distinct from schools of thought. We fear that neo-Darwinism has degenerated to such an unfortunate dogmatic or ideological status. In our opinion, evolution theory deserves better.

We are here concerned with the causes of evolution. The evasion of final cause in biology is one explanation (in an age of trendy materialism) of the recent popularity of Richard Dawkins as a vigorous advocate of scientism. Broom has outlined objections to Dawkins’s approach.

Gradualism remains a dominant principle in orthodox Darwinism, although hardly a dominant characteristic of the actual record of evolution, which is mainly discontinuities or saltations.

We stress and deplore the fact that Dawkins attributes to molecules (DNA) the property of intentionality, even creativity in design - properties which, we suggest, cannot belong to molecules.

If evolution is so unplanned & meaningless as Dawkins claims, why does he never avoid goal-laden accounts of the process? Can evolution actually be described in purpose-free language? If not, that fact might suggest that evolution theory should include rather than ignore the concept of final cause.

That Dawkins could be so popular illustrates the need to clarify explanation and cause. What is to be explained in biology, and what will count as a thorough explanation i.e. a full attribution of causes?

In order to promote consideration of causes in biology, we go back to William Paley’s 1802 scenario of finding, during a stroll on a heath, a watch. Paley argued that the evident order of this mechanism would rightly force the finder who studied it to infer the existence of a purposive design, and therefore a purposeful designer. (This reasoning would seem especially warranted if the watch was running when found.) He then argued that the living mechanisms of nature - the complex machinery so evident in biology - must similarly be inferred to have been designed. We believe this argument has been unreasonably neglected and certainly not refuted. Megatime is no substitute for purpose in the creation of coordinated working ecological order.

In the course of advocating revival of Paley's argument, we attempt to bring up to date the definitions of causes.

A scholar of Greek philosophy discussing Aristotle's four causes remarked :-

The aim of wisdom, he says, is to arrive at knowledge of causes and principles. A 'cause' gives the answer to the question 'Why?'. Generally speaking, the cause of anything is the coming to be of a particular form in the appropriate matter: 'matter' and 'form' are then 'causes' of a thing's existence. But for a complete account of the reason why anything comes to be what it is, a further analysis of form is required, and the original two causes become four.

Aristotle's original statement (in his Metaphysics ) is translated in Flew’s textbook :-

Cause means:

(1) that from which, as its constitutive material, something comes, e.g. the bronze of the statue . . . ;
(2) the form or pattern, that is, the account of the-what-is-to-be . . . ;
(3) the source of the first beginning of change or rest, e.g. the man who resolves is a cause, . . . ; and
(4) the end, that for the sake of which, e.g. as health is of walking around. (‘Why is he walking around?’, we say; ‘In order to be healthy’, and having said this we think we have given the cause.) . . .

These are just about all the senses of the word cause, and since the term is multiply ambiguous there are regularly several causes of the same thing; for instance, the making of a statue and the bronze are causes of the statue . . . They are not, however, causes in the same sense, since the one is material and the other efficient.

Flew comments that in ordinary English the word 'cause' would, by someone quite untouched by Aristotelian influences, be applied only to the Efficient and Final causes (not, we may note, the pair favoured by the scientism that I'm criticising).

Two or three of the labels which have so long been standard are less than self-explanatory, or are even confusing - notably 'efficient' - but it is probably too late to change them.

The difference between #2 and #4, which have been termed respectively Formal and Efficient, is not - in these, Aristotle's original definitions - very clear, but it might be fair to define efficient cause as a process leading to a specific new state; and the concept of purpose is clearly discernible in Aristotle's original wording.

Before the more recent decline in philosophy of science, Professor Morton, using science as Aristotle of course could not, clarified the 4 categories of cause in his 1972 'claret cameo'1, which we here paraphrase.

What are the causes of my bottle of claret?

The material cause includes the grape juice and the yeast, materials transformed by the efficient cause into this peculiar substance claret. The efficient cause, as in Aristotle's prototypical example 'the making of a statue', is the action of the yeast on the grape sugars and some minor components, a process resulting in aqueous ethanol and some minor chemicals characteristic of claret.

But my bottle of claret has also a final cause: a person (named Babich) exerted his will to organise suitable vessels & conditions for the substances which are the material cause, and planned a sequence of operations for the purpose of making claret by maximising the likelihood that the efficient cause for claret would operate i.e. the particular biochemical action of the yeast on the grape juice leading to claret.

Aristotle's formal cause is the 'claret idea' in Babich's mind.

The improvement is that the example of efficient cause in Morton's claret cameo makes clearer in terms of chemistry (as the pre-science Aristotle could not) the concept of a process for a purpose. We propose, as a clarification for the age of science, to define the efficient cause of X as a process of change involving matter &/or energy leading characteristically to X.

What then can be said to explain - ascribe the causes of - an organism? The blueprints encoded in DNA are material causes, and operate as parts of efficient causes through the several types of RNA and the many enzymes essential for synthesis of proteins & other biochemicals; but DNA is certainly not a final cause. As Professor Morton has recently put it, DNA is not the kind of thing that can cause other things, as if paints could leap from tubes to create a Turner, or vibrations & percussions form themselves into a work of Mozart. A person implementing a plan - a final cause, like Aristotle's prototypical 'the man who resolves' - is the only way such things can come to be.

If science consists of discovering materials and forms (e.g. species of organism) and elucidating qualitatively & quantitatively the processes - including energy conversions - which result in new physical situations, then material and efficient causes are the only causes science can study.

But we have found no reason to say that no final cause operates in biology. The neo-Darwinist approach simply assumes that efficient causes (with of course the material causes needed for them to operate) suffice to explain evolution. Emergent properties are assumed to be entailed in the impersonal laws of nature, to whatever arbitrary extent may seem desirable in the attempt to evade final cause.

The main exception is obviously technology - and more widely, all human acts to modify the physical world. The only type of final cause - person acting to cause a change - is, in this 'Enlightenment' approach, human will. Thus ‘who designed this watch?’ is an allowed question, but ‘who designed this frog?’ not . This assumption - an implied denial, rather than any reasoning - appears not to have been subjected to much scrutiny.

One point not at issue is that emergent properties are real & important. As matter takes more complex forms, new properties emerge which are absent in the simpler forms. To take an extremely simple example, the molecular substance H2 (ordinary hydrogen) has more types of properties than does atomic hydrogen H, and science (mainly quantum mechanics) has gone some way toward explaining those emergent properties (e.g. vibrations & rotations seen by infra-red & Raman spectroscopy; nuclear magnetic resonance spectra; etc). But a phenomenon such as the emergence of the first seed-plant (a sequoia, 3 x 108y BC), with no known 'proto-sequoia' precursor, represents a scale & co-ordination of emergence requiring more detailed explanation. Science should continue to discover efficient causes in biology, but the working assumption that there are no final causes should not be viewed as a theological fact.

Perhaps the most advanced non-theological attempt to do justice to causes in biology is Waddington's concept, developed further by Sheldrake, of morphogenic fields. Sheldrake's ideas offer a main bridgehead for the re-connecting of science and religion; since we believe this to be a principal task facing today's world, we sketch Sheldrake's two key concepts here.

It is important to distinguish morphogenic fields, the basic contribution of Sheldrake, from his secondary, far less supported, concept 'morphic resonance' which involves changes in the fields.

Sheldrake's concept morphogenic field, directly treaceable to Waddington's concept 'chreode' , reminds us that the set of blueprints in DNA, a set specifying primary structures (i.e. sequences) for two great classes of macromolecules - nucleic acids and proteins - is not sufficient to specify life. Those linear listings may be necessary, but are not sufficient; the central biological problems of development and of adaptation have not been illuminated by hypothetical models, let alone facts, for how DNA sequences might co-ordinate these processes. The forming of an organism in development requires specifications for when, and where and how fast, to build from each respective DNA blueprint. Can, as a matter of logic, such a development plan be discovered by 'The Human Genome Project', which is only DNA sequencing? The chreode into which a fertilised frog egg grows, to become a frog rather than a dog, is a set of co-ordinating instructions which science has scarcely if at all begun to glimpse, and arguably cannot. It is, according to Sheldrake, a morphogenic field - a formative influence which pre-exists outside the physical universe. Sheldrake also ascribes reparative growth to morphogenic fields, e.g. regrowth of limbs by some animals after amputation. These fields seem to us wholly consistent with theism. We postulate that morphogenic fields are a means of God's action in biology - a means of creating, maintaining, & modifying species.

Sheldrake points out that the 'behaviour' of a TV set - the showing of homunculi on the screen - might well provoke one who had never seen such a thing to seek within the set those homunculi; but the search would reveal only components arranged to resonate with an electromagnetic field.

It may perhaps be not too loose to suggest that morphogenic fields are a means for God's formal causes (e.g. the 'frog plan') to get implemented in the physical world. I would like to suggest further that our formal causes (e.g. Babich's 'claret idea') get implemented as efficient causes by means which are essentially unknown but which may be some variety or analogue of morphogenic fields. How spirit moves matter is a question regarding not only divine action but also our immediate physiology.

The concept of morphogenic fields has stood for two decades as the only serious idea on offer for biologists who ask what is, so to speak, immediately behind the biological phenomena of metabolic maps, nucleic acid sequences, neuron pulses, muscle contractions, etc. Today many if not most scientists assume that nothing behind the superficial is needed - having never heard of half of Aristotle's 4 categories of cause. This is the stance of such main proponents of scientism as Dawkins. We believe Sheldrake has made good progress on integration of all 4 causes toward a more comprehensive theory of biology.

A decade after his original formulation of his secondary concept, morphic resonance, the empirical evidence for it summarised in Sheldrake's most recent book on his theory was still slight. The concept, evidently difficult to demonstrate, is that a given efficient cause becomes more likely to happen after it has occurred once, e.g. crystallisation of a novel organic chemical, because the earlier occurrences modify the relevant morphogenic field. The dearth of evidence does not prove that morphic resonance is unreal; it may just be inconveniently rare for controlled, systematically repeatable observation. The Flynn effect - the startling improvement in IQ test performances over a few decades - may well be an example of morphic resonance.

This postulated change-mechanism is to the fields themselves roughly as mutation is to routine accurate heredity. In each process the secondary phenomenon is much less readily observed even if provoked (e.g. by an artificial mutagen, in the case of mutations) let alone at minimal rates (e.g. caused by natural radiation or minimal irreducible error rates in DNA replication).

Sheldrake assumes, for simplicity, that morphogenic fields are not attenuated in time or space. This does seem a convenient provisional axiom, but refinements will presumably follow. As for numbers, the exposure of the 'hundredth monkey' myth as wishful thinking still leaves almost all relevant possibilities open. The power of groupthink, let alone prayer, is difficult to assess scientifically - but not therefore unreal.

Our main contention is that evolution cannot be explained by only material and efficient causes. They are necessary but not sufficient for the task. The chemical materials are necessary, as are the elaboratings of metabolic pathways within organisms and ecochemical cycles amongst them. But the patterns of evolution cannot have been produced by the mere outworkings of the laws of physics & chemistry. Ecological order, the grandest mechanism, implies design and therefore final cause. Consciousness is if anything even more glaringly not explained by mere efficient causes in biochemistry & biophysics .

We therefore return to Morton's exposition of the Four Causes: if the final cause - the person Babich - is required to explain the bottle of claret, mustn't we conclude that the living world is caused (in mysterious ways) by God's creative actions according to His plan? The efficient causes of organisms, seen in the record of evolution, require for explanation the final cause - God - working out his formal causes. (I recommend here, in passing, reflection on 'the Alpha and the Omega'; e.g. in The Millennium will formal cause have merged with efficient cause?)

I now proceed to interpret my original discipline, Biochemistry, on the understanding I just outlined.

A scientist contemplating any living organism can ask three types of question which may be vernacularly put:-

What's In There?

What's It Doing In There?

How Does It Know What to Do In There?

These three questions - historically, tackled in that order (with overlaps in time) - correspond respectively to Aristotle's material, efficient, and final causes.

1 'What's In There?'

The list of biochemicals, the material constituents of organisms, includes many minerals in various chemical states, but most famously compounds of the element carbon.

Scientists call compounds of carbon 'organic', and the branch of chemistry analysing & synthesising carbon compounds is called organic chemistry. Millions of organic compounds are theoretically possible, and about one million are known, most of them not believed to occur naturally. No other element than carbon exhibits anything like this complexity in its chemistry. Vague talk of alternative biochemistry based on silicon is low-grade science fiction. Biochemistry is aqueous organic chemistry.

Until the early 19th C. - well into the age of 'Enlightenment' - chemists generally accepted that, while organic compounds such as indigo were susceptible of analysis to discover their molecular structures, artificial synthesis of an organic compound was subject to a subtle quasi-religious aura of impossibility or, at least, peculiar extreme difficulties. By the first artificial test-tube synthesis of an organic compound Wöhler in 1828 broke down the mystique. He made urea, an organic compound having a simple 8-atom molecule, identical to the main nitrogenous organic component of the urine from many types of animal. Synthetic organic chemistry then flourished magnificently, earning many Nobel prizes; and today even modified genes get synthesised in the lab (but only with the crucial selective catalyses of enzymes biosynthesised by, and then separated from, living organisms).

There certainly are further biochemicals to be discovered, but by the early 20th C. the catalogue was beginning - rather like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle - to make enough sense to allow asking the next question.

2 'What's It Doing In There?'

Some sketchy list of biochemicals having been compiled in the heroic age of 'natural product' organic chemistry, it became practicable to begin the search for metabolic pathways - the network of chemical reactions which build up (anabolism) and break down (catabolism) biochemicals within living cells.

Another category of what's 'doing' in living organisms is electrical processes, notably in nerves. These are conventionally assumed to be reducible to biochemistry. Genes are assumed to encode the full instructions for macromolecules, importantly proteins but also nucleic acids (RNA & DNA), and bioelectricity is assumed to be caused by the cooperating behaviour of some of these macromolecules along with lipids (fatty compounds) and some carbohydrates, in membranes. Similarly analysed are other transductions e.g. of chemical energy to mechanical energy in muscles. The discipline of physiology deals with these electrical and mechanical aspects of life, but the assumption is prevalent that those phenomena can be reduced to biochemistry.

By the mid-1960s J D Watson could advance (in the first edition of his textbook Molecular Biology of the Gene ) some loose arguments that perhaps one-third of the metabolic pathways were known, for one species - a favourite subject of biochemists, the paradigmatic simple single-celled bacterium Escherichia coli. A vague feeling of quasi-completeness set in, at least for this and a few other relatively well-studied microbes. No longer did many biochemistry laboratories pursue discovery of further metabolic pathways; biochemists pressed on to the third category of biochemical question.

3 'How Does It Know What to Do In There?'

It is all very well to have a reasonably coherent picture of metabolic pathways - some idea of 'what's doing in there' - but how is this complex co-ordinated system unfolded as a frog zygote develops into a frog rather than a dog? This, the problem of development, had stimulated classical biologists to remarkable discoveries in embryology. The pattern of an organism's development as simply displayed within that species' life cycle had been investigated in some detail in a wide range of species. Restorative potentials were explored after various experimental ablations of anatomical or chemical parts. Patterns of biochemical coordination in time & space were explored in molecular detail, e.g. the biosynthesis of chlorophyll as a plant first meets light, or the biosynthesis of haemoglobin in mammalian cells specialised to produce this iron complex.

Development has been theorised as the successive expression of genes. The standard model has depicted the gene - in a cell nucleus or mitochondrion or chloroplast or plasmid or virus - as a stretch of DNA (or in some viruses RNA) constituting the linearly-encoded specifications to guide the synthesis of corresponding RNA, translated in most cases into corresponding protein molecules. Since the thousands of enzymes acting to catalyse their respective reactions within the metabolic pathways are proteins, the general model emerges that development is largely a matter of synthesising, at suitable places & times, the appropriate amounts of the proteins - more generally, the macromolecules - which function in timely coordination to cause the dynamic network of chemical, electrical & mechanical processes occurring in living organisms.

Our first question asked for a static list. The second question was in essence dynamical - what processes occur in life? The third question not only asks about changing rates of biochemical reactions but also leads us to distinguish the different kinds of causes operating in biology.

If to explain a bottle of claret requires a final cause, how can a frog be assumed not to have been designed?

Biochemistry & physiology fall entirely within the categories of material and efficient causes. Regarding ontogeny, and perhaps even more strongly regarding phylogeny, such explanations - no matter how complete in themselves - should not be deemed to constitute between them total explanation in biology.

The assumption to omit final cause in biological theory has been little discussed. This assumption is a most important aspect of the popular attitude scientific atheism. But is it better than mere question-begging? I conspue its furtive role as an unstated axiom of many modern scientists.

Here is the comment of a prominent (USA) intellectual regarding our basic argument.

My hunch is that complexity among organisms will gradually become understandable within a broadly Darwinian framework, just as Dawkins has proposed. It's always a mistake, I believe, to take the still-unsolved puzzles of the natural world as evidence that they require a creator; this has been disproved at every juncture, and I'm pretty sure the process of secularizing nature's mysteries will continue.

But do the laws of chemistry show much sign of explaining why the frog appeared in evolution? Is there even a glimpse of neo-Darwinian explanation why the type of algae known as diatoms do not appear in the fossil record until so recently as ca.150M year ago whereas the first algae were ca.3600M year ago? Can neo-Darwinism get far at all in explaining even simple organs in anatomy, let alone ecological behaviour such as migrations of eels or godwits? Sheldrake has argued that the popularisation of neo-Darwinist theory has amounted to little better than the issuing of an endless series of promissory notes. The actual achievements of scientific atheism in explaining life remain extremely slender.

It is not just that scientific atheism has made slower progress than it had hoped - though this sluggishness might be widely admitted. The inadequacy of explanation is not merely quantitative. The more important point is the qualitative distinction: no amount of explanation in the categories of material & efficient causes can suffice to explain life.

Biochemistry & physiology are rightly pursued on the working hypothesis that their discoveries will establish more & more facts in the categories of material & efficient causes; but non-existence of final cause is a working assumption for the purposes of scientific method, rather than a general philosophical axiom let alone a fact of biology.

Absence of final cause has been a most regrettable - crippling, I would argue - assumption in much recent philosophy of science, and in the actual teaching of science to students. This error has been an unadmitted ideological projection onto nature, much like the 'red in tooth & claw' canard - the idea that competition rather than co-operation is the main characteristic of ecosystems - which has been (as Goldsmith has argued in his magnum opus 'The Way') projected onto biology from the ideology known as economics.

I think what has essentially been going on since Darwin & Wallace presented their main idea is misuse of that idea as a weapon for atheists to club religion. The pretence that science can supplant religion, rather than cooperating with it, has been far too influential and should be promptly abandoned. The status of scientist confers no special authority in theology or even epistemology. Omitting half of the 4 causes is an axiom acquiring no valid augmentation of authority from Dawkins, Weinberg, Hawking, or any other scientist.

The end of 'creationism'

Morton brought up to date the 4 causes. We can now see that evolution, as a material process, is an array of efficient causes which cannot bear directly on the question of final causes (though it does give hints, explored in natural theology).

To admit evolution as a fact is not at all to deny creation but only to say that it has been more or less continuous. For a theist, as opposed to a deist, the concept of God's constant creative participation in the world is essential; the idea that novel species ceased to be created after the 6th day is more in the nature of deism and can hardly be claimed to give God more credit or respect.

The big bang and the subsequent workings of the laws of physics & chemistry - a dazzling set of efficient causes of the world we now live in - hardly begin to explain why organisms came into existence, or why they so marvellously cooperate in ecosystems.

The real issue is not the mischievous waste of time misleadingly called "creation science" which diverts thought into the phoney dispute 'evolution v. creation' . The real issue is realistic explanation v. invalid neglect of final cause.

---

Dr Don Nield: Again I have no question but a comment. I think Drs Broom & Mann should perhaps be a little more careful in their terminology in talking about neo-Darwinism. Both speakers introduced the idea quite correctly - it is just the combination of genetics, especially as developed 1920-50, with the natural selection proposed by Darwin. But in fact many of those who developed neo-Darwinism were Christians. Shouldn't we distinguish neo-Darwinism from Dawkinsism?

Mann: That's a fruitful suggestion - any contemptuous focussing on Dawkins is very welcome to me [laughter]. He's a disgrace to science [laughter]. I'm glad you can laugh at that - I can't. I'm worried when science is disgraced to the extent of his selling millions of books. There's something very wrong with the public status of science when that kind of rubbish can sell to that extent. Sheldrake, by contrast, is in a different class - he's getting down to business; he's acknowledging all 4 causes, whereas Dawkins (while of course not being so helpful as to say so) is flagging away 2 of the 4 causes. It's a travesty - a shocking bout of slum-dwelling in the history of intellectual activity.

Q: In the new age of quantum technology, when we find that time itself is a variable, might we not find in the future when the blinkers are taken from our eyes, maybe the Six Day notion is still on because Time itself changes in length? We all know that the atomic clock that goes from here to the moon & back runs slower than the one that stays on Earth.

Mann: I don't think that will get you very far at all in explaining the difference between 6 days and 6 billion years. The apparent variation in time to which you allude is not really cogent to anything I've discussed today. And here let me mention that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is intimately tied up with the realm of thinking you've referred to shows very little promise indeed regarding any of the questions I've touched on. It's essentially blind; it gives no hint of final or formal cause; it's just a source of randomness, which is not what we need to explain evolution.

Finlay: I see efficient and material causes as being rightly the subject matter of science. Final and formal causes are personal categories and therefore cannot ever be suitable for scientific investigation.

Mann: Yes!

Finlay: So it's not that formal & final causes can ever be biology; but the question is whether we add by faith personal causes to our biology or do we dismiss personal causes from our biology. The biology itself is the same.

Mann: Yes I think that's a very reasonable approach. Of course, it's always tempting to say the province of religion doesn't overlap with the province of science and therefore they can't come into conflict (let alone war according to A. D. White). There is some truth in that line, but it won't quite do; they do in fact overlap, and indeed we want them to overlap. We want a new biology to stop being so fixated by materialism and to explore seriously, as Sheldrake has led us to do, how biology could at last get interested anew in how final and formal causes are to be understood as affecting life. I don't want any more materialistic biology; I've pointed to main thinkers who are giving us some leads for re-integrating strictly 'scientific' biology with a much wider view. I commend especially Professor Morton's paper in the Festschrift which will give you more leadership than you've yet seen.

---

1 John Morton Man, Science and God pp14-17 Auckland & London: Collins 1972
2 e.g. Descartes to Mersenne 1632 "I expect soon to be able to calculate the position of every star"
3 L Margulis & K V Schwartz Five Kingdoms Freeman 1998
4 (compiled in collaboration with Mr Art Haughey and Assoc. Prof. Jack Grant-Mackie)
5 N D Broom Ecologist 28 (1) 23-28 (199; much more detail in idem 'How Blind is The Watchmaker?' Aldershot: Ashgate 1998; revised edn. 2001 Downers Grove: IVP
6 M E J Taylor Greek Philosophy - an introduction pp120-121 London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press 1924
7 A Flew Introduction to Western Philosophy p159 London: Thames & Hudson 1989
8 (but note that a person who tries to patent a transgenic organism is claiming to be a final cause)
9 It is possible to imagine reasons why Sheldrake normally inserts another syllable to say 'morphogenetic'.
10 C H Waddington Towards a Theoretical Biology 2 vols Edinburgh Univ. Press 1969
11 R Sheldrake The Rebirth of Nature pp88-90 Century 1990
12 J R Flynn 'Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: what IQ tests really measure' Psych. Bull. 101 171-191 1980
13 M Possel & R Amundson 'Senior Researcher Comments on the Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon in Japan', Skeptical Inquirer May/June 1996
14 I remark here that Heisenberg uncertainty is very unpromising as a source of free will, much as random mutation is a most unpromising source of order in ecology.
15 'Biochemical Pathways' wall-chart Mannheim: Boehringer Chemicals semi-annual
16 Robert Mann & Neil Broom 'Creationism v. evolution but not creation v. evolution'Stimulus 8 (2) 16-20 (2000)


The Big Thing from small beginnings
- reflections on Pentecost
Robert Mann
slightly adapted from Real World 1998

Once Jesus had ascended back to heaven, the most important thing left for his faithful few was the Holy Spirit. That Spirit remains for us today The Big Thing - our most important asset, the continuing inspiration which we require to carry on proclaiming the Good News and living by it as best we can. But this important Third Person of the Holy Trinity became known to humanity through a quiet beginning.

On the festival of Pentecost, we celebrate the birth of the church as recounted in Acts 2 - a flamboyant occasion of doubtless crucial significance on that historic day and ever since. The so-called pentecostal sects emphasise visible direct operations of the spirit in group worship today, e.g. speaking in tongues.

Some more elderly congregations tend to prefer the name Whitsunday, and to read for that day's lesson John 20 19-23, a far quieter occasion. For those who have never spoken in tongues, let alone seen holy fire on each others' heads, that event at the closing of the first Easter Day is perhaps especially precious.

I would go so far as to suggest that, whatever Anglicans may think of 'pentecostal' tendencies, the Anglican church is open to the accusation of having gone too far the other way - too little emphasis on the Holy Spirit. In any case I wish to argue that a better understanding of the Holy Spirit will be encouraged if both John 20 19-23 and Acts 2 1-41 are embraced in preaching on Pentecost.

Jesus prefigured, with memorable if mysterious breath, a continuing spiritual presence, at his resurrected appearance amongst the disciples late in the evening of the day when Mary Magdalene had found the tomb empty. Translations typically quote him, having breathed upon them, "Receive the Holy Spirit". However, the Archbishop of Canterbury widely viewed as this century's most talented, William Temple, in his valuable book 'Readings in St. John's Gospel' (Macmillan 1938; reprinted through 1955) translates instead

"Receive holy spirit (or breath)".
Temple specifically insists on this wording by adding, in explanation,
not "the Holy Spirit"
and goes on immediately to expound:
What is bestowed is not the Divine Person Himself but the power and energy of which He is the source. Earlier it had been said not yet was there spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7, 39). But now that glorification is complete, and it is possible for the new divine energy, which operates through man's response to the manifested love of God, to begin its activity . . . only so far as the Church in and through its members fulfils the condition - Receive holy spirit - can it discharge this function.

The gospels were written in Greek. The word for spirit in the John 20 passage is simply the same as for breath (pneuma), the common word for spirit in the NT. The word paracletos appears in the NT only 5 times, all by St John (Jn 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7; 1Jn 2:1). It seems straightforwardly justified therefore to adopt Temple's reading of the John 20 passage, rather than the more popular translation which infers that the Holy Spirit was conferred on that occasion.

The persistence of the popular translation - as if omission of "the" in gospel Greek could be casual or alternatively from some pious tampering - I must leave to biblical scholars to review. It would appear, e.g. from the biography by Iremonger, and generally from his fluent & profound arguments using Greek throughout his works, that Temple was a better Greek scholar than most or all today. J B Phillips in the late 1950s simply concurred with Temple's translation, whereas the prolix Rudolph Schnackenberg (1990) ignores it. I find Temple's reading much the more convincing.

He was, in 1938, very quiet in mentioning the error; and he did not comment at all on its possible origins. One may infer that Temple thought it would be needlessly critical of highly respected authorities if he were to make any fuss of this correction. (Would that many a modern stirrer were so thoughtful & restrained! It is easy to point out defects in the powers that be; but unless we have a good purpose in view, and a better plan, we should not do so.)

Pious insertions have occurred in the fraught history of our precious scriptures, e.g. the minor confusion in 1 John 5 7-8 complained of by Sir Isaac Newton. Even the Great Commission (the final 3 verses of St Matthew's gospel) is suspected of being a later addition rather than actual words of Christ. It would appear that "Receive the Holy Spirit" is a comparable pious embellishment of the Lord's more subtle words "Receive holy spirit".

An interpretation thus seems open that the John 20 phrase is a gentle prefiguring - with memorable breath, but nevertheless gentle compared to the mighty wind when, 50 days later, the faithful few must have needed firmer reassurance. I do not dispute Temple's toning-down in 1938 of his correction, but I do suggest that today it is due for acceptance rather than continued ignore.

Temple's reading is consistent with the promise in Acts 1 "not many days after this you shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit", implied if not clearly presented as coming just before the Ascension, and certainly after Easter.

Within two months the few went through the agony & despair of Calvary; the eerie encouragement of the empty tomb; the quiet visitation later that day, unrecognised in that moment, on the road to Emmaeus; the Resurrected Lord that evening in the locked room conferring on the disciples awesome power after breathing holy spirit over them; other resurrection appearances, once to 500; the loss - if triumphant - of the Ascension; and then 50 days after Easter the overwhelming manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Evidently the emergence of the Paraclete in this world was a gradual process rather than sudden. (This should come as no surprise; Christ himself within his earthly life blossomed in a process of development - "day by day like us he grew".)

The question for us now is, therefore, what are we today doing to utilise and contribute to what Temple called the new divine energy, which operates through man's response to the manifested love of God. This two-way process empowers, if dauntingly, the human species of the Christian era. The Holy Spirit, though of simple beginnings in earthly emergence, has become The Big Thing for us today. Are we with it - availing ourselves of this power, and also contributing to its working? Let us pray, feeding on him in our heart with thanksgiving, for faith to do so - believing that one prayer which is always answered is the prayer for stronger faith.

Here's a local article on the California preemption battle. California's
constitution explicitly gives local jurisdictions the right to legislate
where the state doesn't, so it's not clear whether, in the absence of state
regulation of genetically engineered crops, a law stripping authority from
counties and municipalities could pass constitutional muster.

Biotech crop bans face 'hijack' threat
Keri Brenner
Marin Independent Journal, July 6 2005

http://www.marinij.com/marin/ci_2842594

Marin's biotech crop ban, approved by voters last November, could be
threatened by "hijacking" attempts in the state Legislature that would
pre-empt county ordinances, local activists said.

"They're trying to sneak it in at the end of the legislative session,"
said Mark Squire, leader of GMO Free Marin, which spearheaded the
successful Measure B initiative last year. "The end of the Legislature
(session) is traditionally the way to sneak things in so there's not time
for opposition to build or for the public to make a lot of comment."

Squire, owner of Good Earth Natural Foods in Fairfax, made his comments in
the wake of last week's two attempts by legislators to amend bills in the
state Assembly and Senate.

The process of cutting and pasting bills to insert new language is referred
to as "hijacking." The amended bills, which are slated to be heard again
this week, would remove local government authority over any seed
regulations.

"We feel it's typical of the way the biotech industry has attempted to
market their technology by avoiding public debate," Squire said.

Genetically engineered crops - also called GMOs for genetically modified
organisms, or biotech crops - refer to crops in which the DNA in seeds has
been altered to add a specific quality, such as resistance to pesticides or
disease. Proponents say genetically modified crops - such as some types of
corn, wheat, soy and rice - increase farm production and streamline farming
costs.

Opponents, however, say the biotech industry's interest in the altered
crops is financial. If the companies can control the seed patents, they can
force farmers to pay for new seeds every year, critics say.

Marin is one of three counties, along with Mendocino and Trinity, with a
ban on cultivation of genetically altered crops.

Fairfax Councilman Frank Egger said he will introduce an item at tonight's
Town Council meeting to oppose any "GMO pre-emption legislation." He is
organizing Marin activists to appear in Sacramento this week to request the
Legislature vote "no" on the two bills.

"The sneaky move is similar to the pesticide industry's pre-empting the
right of Mendocino County to prohibit aerial pesticide spraying after the
California Supreme Court upheld their voters' right to that ban,"

Egger said. "That legislative pre-emption then covered all 478 cities and
58 counties in California."

Squire's and Egger's comments come as a new statewide farm group, the
California Healthy Foods Coalition, announced it was forming to provide
more public education and grassroots programs on the benefits of
biotechnology.

"Family farmers understand some people have questions about biotechnology,"
said California Farm Bureau President Bill Pauli. "Our coalition will
provide people with the facts and will support agricultural innovations
that will improve the quality of life for California consumers."

The group has engaged a public relations firm, Sacramento-based River City
Communications, to launch a series of media announcements explaining the
coalition's intent and purpose.

"California's family farmers serve an important role in providing safe and
healthy food to consumers around the world," said River City President
Marko Mlikotin.

At issue in the current campaign is a genetically engineered crop ban
initiative approved for the November ballot in Sonoma County. Sonoma's
ballot measure was withdrawn last year after a technical flaw, but it has
been revamped and reintroduced.

Farm bureaus across the state - including the Marin County Farm Bureau -
opposed the series of biotech crop bans on the California ballot last
November. Marin farm officials said even though Marin does not have any
biotech crops, they wanted to have the flexibility to use any new
technologies they felt could be helpful in their operations.

A ban was approved in Marin by 61 percent of voters, but similar measures
were defeated in Butte and San Luis Obispo counties.

"Measure B won by 61 percent after an open public discourse around the GMO
issue," Squire said. "When people have a chance to hear the story, they do
the right thing."

Renata Brillinger of Californians for GE-Free Agriculture of Occidental
said the legislative attempts in Sacramento were "part of a nationally
coordinated highjacking of local democratic rights by the biotechnology
industry."

Similar laws have been attempted or passed into law in 15 other states, she
said.

"The measure is driven by narrow private interests seeking to protect their
economic stake by convincing members of the Legislature to strip away the
democratic rights of their own constituents," Brillinger said.

The state bills in question are Assembly Bill 1508 and Senate Bill 1056.
Assemblymen Simon Salinas, D-Salinas, and Juan Arambula, D-Fresno, and Sen.
Dean Florez, D-Bakersfield, wrote the amendments.

"We feel that Marin does have the right to protect our health, farms and
environment from GMOs that the state and federal governments regulate so
poorly," Squire said. "It is obvious that the federal government, whose job
it is to protect us from such risky technologies, is asleep at the wheel."

Corner Post #390
Farm & Countryside Commentary by Elbert van Donkersgoed

"Save the farmer; the farmer will save the farmland." I've heard this
argument many times, especially at the many farmland preservation
conferences that I've attended over the decades. The argument, while
appealing, is pure rhetoric, disconnected from any reality check. It is not
rooted in the economics of farming, nor in the land market.

Last week's Farmland Preservation Conference at the University of Guelph,
sponsored by the Ontario Farmland Trust, was a breath of fresh air. No one
made the simplistic argument that improving farm prices and the
profitability of farming is all it takes to assure us that our best farmland
will be there for decades to come - that the present pattern of losing 2% of
our very best farmland to the urban footprint, every decade - will stop.

The Waterloo Federation of Agriculture spoke from experience. Total receipts
per acre of successful farms in Waterloo region come nowhere near the return
per acre realized from development lands. One last crop of houses is an
economic opportunity that none of our farming systems can hope to match.
Society, not farm families, must make the decision to preserve the farmland.
Assuming that farm families will do it for us is pie-in-the-sky thinking.

The purpose of last week's conference was not to focus on the "how to" of
farmland preservation. Rather, the conference recognized that our provincial
government has taken some modest steps with the new Provincial Policy
Statement under the Planning Act and the Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt Act to
provide more protection for farmland. The conference moved on to meeting the
challenges of farming on protected land, often in the shadow of our cities.

Protecting farmland does not mean that we have saved the farm.

Dick Esseks from the University of Nebraska and Patty Cantrell from the
Michigan Land Use Institute shared their experiences with invigorating
farming communities on the edge of cities. Ho Wong, Director of Planning for
Halton Region, described the Greenbelt as a case of missed opportunities.

Protecting our farmland is essential for the success of the business of
farming. By itself, it is not enough. The business of farming must have a
strong economic future. A viable farming system makes protecting farmland
practical.

Having taken step one, the province of Ontario must now take step two.

Most of our farmland is privately owned. We have come to expect abundant,
cheap food from the farm businesses that manage these lands. In addition,
the emerging regulatory regime expects these farm businesses to enhance our
countryside's environmental goods and services - without remuneration.

This situation will not hold. Let's pay those who keep protected farmland
productive.
__

Elbert van Donkersgoed P. Ag. (Hon.) is the Strategic Policy Advisor of the
Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, Canada. Corner Post is heard weekly
on CFCO Radio, Chatham and CKNX Radio, Wingham, Ontario. Corner Post has a
complimentary email subscriber list of more than 3,500 and appears regularly
on Agriculture Online/Views at www.agriculture.com/ag/views/ and as "Letter
from Ontario" on The New Farm website at www.newfarm.org. CFFO is supported
by 4,300 family farmers across Ontario. Corner Post is archived on the CFFO
website:
www.christianfarmers.org/sub_news_commentaries/sub2_news_com_corner_post/new
s_com_corner_post.htm.

>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Subject: Dr. White's letter to U.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs
>regarding submarines
>Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:57:57 -1000
>Thread-Topic: Dr. White's letter to U.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs
>regarding submarines
>
>From: "Benham, David LT COMPACFLT"
>To:
>Cc: "Yoshishige, Jon J CIV (CPF N00PA)"
>
>Dr. White,
>Received your letter of 27 June regarding U.S. nuclear submarines. As
>to the first paragraph, the report you saw is incorrect. Our SSNs
>routinely make port visits all over the world, and there are no plans to
>change that. As to the second paragraph, you are correct. Our SSBNs do
>not make foreign port visits. If you have any other questions, please let
>us know.
>Cheers, Dave

>LT David "Dave" Benham, USN
>Media Officer
>U.S. Pacific Fleet (N00PA)
>250 Makalapa Drive, Building 81
>Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3131
>david.benham@navy.mil
>Comm: (80 471-3769
>DSN: (315) 471-3769
>Fax: (80 422-0771
> http://www.cpf.navy.mil

-----

R E

Isn't it a puzzle that a Pearl Harbor PR operative signing as Lt
USN contradicts the deputy ambassador in Wgton. I've not heard of such
administrative discombooberation since Duck Soup. Watch for the sidecar to
take off ahead of the motorbike.

It could be taken as evidence that the USA armed forces are under
only very weak democratic control.

A rapid investigation of this interesting Pentagon/State
disjunction should be conducted by respectable academics. (That lets -
according to your vicious backbiting - me out.)

I disbelieve that the no. 2 State Dept officer in Wgton is less
reliable than a Pearl Harbor PR agent. It would admittedly seem rather
surprising that the Pentagon has been so slow to let its PR operatives know
of the new policy. Perhaps the U of Ak research student was favoured with
slightly early info which has yet to trickle out to Pearl.

What mission could an SSN have anywhere near NZ these days? NZ's
antagonism to nuclear reactors - in which I was instrumental, one of my
most worthwhile achievements - has not faded. It ws already dominating
national policy before you worked up the courage to speak out against
fission reactors or even bombs. It can be readily manifested again, in
response to real or furphicious nukethreats. If some cynical PR agents
want to stage a sideshow, perhaps to distract attention from some serious
misbehaviour in another dimension of politics, they can feed into the media
a NukeThreat rumour, which will serve as an excuse to publicize one or more
solemn emotive pseudoexpert powerharpie e.g Bunny of Greepneace saying
unirradiated plutonium is the most dangerous manmade substance.

Nobody important wants to bring nuclear reactors to NZ. The USA
embassy can hardly be unaware that any n-propelled vessel would not evoke
goodwill but another bout of protest & ill-will. Oil-powered icebreakers
or naval research vessels actually doing something with what remains of our
navy would appear the safest way to re-form NZ's working relationship with
the USN. Some oil-powered warship might then follow. We would have to
rely on crew members to let us know of any nuclear weapons they still carry
contrary to the USA govt's public promises (they have broken such promises
before).

Some media operatives are suggesting that the poor current state of
NZ relations with the USN expresses largely anti-USA, not anti-nuclear,
sentiments. That may well be true of H Clark esq, etc. But I drafted the
then-biggest petition to the NZ Parlt asking for exclusion of both n-power
stations (then officially proposed by NZED) and marine reactors. Giants
Can Fade, as outlined by Wills, Sinton & me in _NZ Envir 68_ ; this is one
preventable hazard we can control by politics & law. We have done so.

Bryan Leyland, who presumably has some agency from Westinghouse to
push 'safe, clean & economical' nookuluh power (yes, he's revived that
classic slogan) courtesy of Holmes® with no discussion, but old admirers of
mine urge me vigorously not to respond publicly. Don't dignify the nuclear
cause by any public response against it, some say. I have generally acted
according to that advice. I doubt either marine or power-station reactors
are a planning option in the foreseeable future.

But what with framing up Don on that 'gorn afore lunch' furphy, the
n-subs question may surface in the election campaign. I hope to fw an
attachment soon - PDF if we're lucky - of Giants Can Fade, as a handy
reference if you run into concerned inquirers about the dangers of marine
reactors.

Meanwhile, I believe the deputy ambassador ahead of the PR Lt.

R

What rocks is capitalism... yeah, yeah, yeah

By Mark Steyn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/05/do0502.xml

05/07/2005

'To sneer at such events," cautioned The Sunday Telegraph apropos Live8,
"demeans the generosity which they embody".

Oh, dear. If you can't sneer at rock stars in the Telegraph, where can
you? None the less, if not exactly a full-blown sneer, I did feel a faint
early Sir Cliff-like curl of the lip coming on during the opening moments
of Saturday's festivities, when Sir Paul McCartney stepped onstage.

Not because Sir Paul was any better or worse than Sir Elton or Sir Bob or
any other member of the aristorockracy, but because it reminded me of why
I'm sceptical about the "generosity" which these events "embody".

Seven years ago, you'll recall, Sir Paul's wife died of cancer. Linda
McCartney had been a resident of the United Kingdom for three decades but
her Manhattan tax lawyers, Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts, devoted
considerable energy in her final months to establishing her right to have
her estate probated in New York state.

That way she could set up a "qualified domestic marital trust" that
would... Yeah, yeah, yeah, in the immortal words of Lennon and/or
McCartney. Big deal, you say. We're into world peace and saving the
planet and feeding Africa. What difference does it make which
jurisdiction some squaresville suit files the boring paperwork in?

Okay, I'll cut to the chase. By filing for probate in New York rather
than the United Kingdom, Linda McCartney avoided the 40 per cent death
duties levied by Her Majesty's Government. That way, her family gets all
100 per cent - and 100 per cent of Linda McCartney's estate isn't to be
sneezed at.

For purposes of comparison, Bob Geldof's original Live Aid concert in 1985
raised £50 million. Lady McCartney's estate was estimated at around £150
million. In other words, had she paid her 40 per cent death duties, the
British Treasury would have raised more money than Sir Bob did with
Bananarama and all the gang at Wembley Stadium that day.

Given that she'd enjoyed all the blessings of life in these islands since
1968, Gordon Brown might have felt justified in reprising Sir Bob's
heartfelt catchphrase at Wembley: "Give us yer fokkin' money!" But she
didn't. She kept it for herself. And good for her. I only wish I could
afford her lawyers.

I don't presume to know what was in her mind, but perhaps she figured that
for the causes she cared about - vegetarianism, animal rights, the usual
stuff - her money would do more good if it stayed in private hands rather
than getting tossed down the great sucking maw of the Treasury where an
extra 60 million quid makes barely a ripple.

And, while one might query whether Sir Paul (with his own fortune of £500
million) or young Stella really need an extra 15 million or so apiece, in
the end Linda McCartney made a wise decision in concluding that her estate
would do more good kept out of Mr Brown's hands, or even re-routed to
Africa, where it might just about have defrayed the costs of the
deflowering ceremony for the King of Swaziland's latest wife.

And that's why the Live8 bonanza was so misguided. Two decades ago, Sir
Bob was at least demanding we give him our own fokkin' money. This time
round, all he was asking was that we join him into bullying the G8 blokes
to give us their taxpayers' fokkin' money.

Or as Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd put it: "I want to do everything I can to
persuade the G8 leaders to make huge commitments to the relief of poverty
and increased aid to the Third World. It's crazy that America gives such
a paltry percentage of its GNP to the starving nations."

No, it's not. It's no more crazy than Linda McCartney giving such a paltry
percentage of her estate - ie, 0 per cent - to Gordon Brown. And, while
Britain may be a Bananarama republic, it's not yet the full-blown thing.

Africa is a hard place to help. I had a letter from a reader the other
day who works with a small Canadian charity in West Africa. They bought a
14-year-old SUV for 1,500 Canadian dollars to ferry food and supplies to
the school they run in a rural village. Customs officials are demanding a
payment of $8,000 before they'll release it.

There are thousands of incidents like that all over Africa every day of
the week. Yet, throughout the weekend's events, Dave Gilmour and Co were
too busy Rocking Against Bush to spare a few moments to Boogie Against
Bureaucracy or Caterwaul Against Corruption or Ululate Against Usurpation.
Instead, Madonna urged the people to "start a revolution". Like Africa
hasn't had enough of those these past 40 years?

Let's take it as read that Sir Bob and Sir Bono are exceptionally well
informed and articulate on Africa's problems. Why then didn't they get the
rest of the guys round for a meeting beforehand with graphs and pie charts
and bullet points in bright magic markers, so that Sir Dave and Dame
Madonna would understand that Africa's problem is not a lack of "aid".
The tragedy of Live8 is that its message was as cobwebbed as its
repertoire.

Don't get me wrong. I love old rockers - not for the songs, which are
awful, but for their business affairs, which so totally rock. In 1997,
David Bowie became the first pop star to hold a bond offering himself.
How about that? Fifty-five million dollars' worth of Bowie "class A
royalty-backed notes" were snapped up in minutes after Moody's in New York
gave them their coveted triple-A rating.

Once upon a time, rock stars weren't rated by Moody, they were moody -
they self-destructed, they choked to death in their own vomit, they hoped
to die before they got old. Instead, judging from Sir Pete Townshend on
Saturday, they got older than anyone's ever been. Today, Paul McCartney is
a businessman: he owns the publishing rights to Annie and Guys & Dolls.
These faux revolutionaries are capitalists red in tooth and claw.

The system that enriched them could enrich Africa. But capitalism's the
one cause the poseurs never speak up for. The rockers demand we give our
fokkin' money to African dictators to manage, while they give their
fokkin' money to Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts to manage. Which of
those models makes more sense?

Melanie Phillips raises extremely serious charges (below) against the
Anglican Consultative Committee, and I must agree with her. Bat Ye'or in
her latest book, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (2005), makes the case that
Islam is trying for nothing less than the Palestinization and Islamization
of Christ, and thereby Christianity. This is a huge topic and only a short
email, so best she describes part of it: "The search for a
Muslim-Christian common ground has led since the middle of the twentieth
century to a "de-biblicizing" of the Bible. In line with the Massignon
school and one of its most active defenders, the late Abbe Youakim
Moubarak, the Bible was reinterpreted from the viewpoint of the Qur'an.

Some Arab Palestinian clergy are currently campaigning to induce the
Church to forego the First Testament altogether, as well as its spiritual
links with Judaism. They recommend retaining only the Gospels,
interpreted in line with Qur'anic assertions. They hope to suppress the
Judeo-Christian connection in order to attach the Gospels to the Qur'an,
in particular through the adoption of the Qur'anic interpretations of the
Palestinian Arab (Muslim) Jesus." (Eurabia, p.215)

Benedict will, I believe, make efforts to reunite the various eastern
churches, that, with the exception of the Copts, have generally sold out
to Islam over the centuries, "dhimmitude" being simply a protection
racket. Bat Ye'or's The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam:From
Jihad to Dhimmitude (1991) and Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations
Collide (2002) describe this in detail.

My own attendances at interfaith dialogues tend to confirm this emphasis.
Your comments would be most welcome.

Mark

__________

The church stares into the abyss

Jewish Chronicle, 1 July 2005

Melanie Phillips

http://www.melanie
phillips.com/articles/archives/001295.html

It’s the church’s AUT moment. The endorsement by the Anglican
Consultative Council of divestment from companies supporting Israeli
policies echoes the boycott debate among university lecturers and plunges
Jewish-Christian relations into a crisis.

Although the ACC softened its final position by weaselly caveats designed
to produce deniability, the fact remains that the Anglican communion has
now lined up behind those who are waging war against the Jews.

The Anglican Peace and Justice Network report on which the decision was
based is a farrago of inflammatory lies, libels and distortions. It
presents the Arab perpetrators of mass murder as victims and their real
victims n Israel as oppressors merely for trying to defend themselves.
Despite disingenuous pieties about opposing terror against Israelis, the
document demonises Israel and supports policies that would lead to its
destruction.

It claims that Israel ‘systematically and deliberately oppressed and
dehumanised the people of Palestine’ and deplores ‘the continuing policies
of illegal home demolitions, detentions, checkpoints, identity card
systems and the presence of the Israeli military that make any kind of
normal life impossible.’ But the only reason normal life is impossible is
that the Arabs in the territories are intent on ending as many Israeli
lives as possible.

It writes the Jews out of the historic script by claiming that the
Palestinians were removed from their ‘historic lands’. But Judea, Samaria
and Galilee are the historic lands of the Jews, not the Arab colonisers
who drove them out.

It claims there is ‘little will on behalf of the Israel government to
recognise the rights of the Palestinians to a sovereign state to be
created in the West Bank — which includes East Jerusalem — and Gaza.’ Yet
Israel offered precisely such a state at Camp David and at Taba, and the
only response was the terror war waged against its citizens.

The report’s visceral anti-Jewish prejudice is expressed most starkly when
it compares the ‘concrete walls of Palestine’ with ‘the barbed-wire fence
of the Buchenwald camp’. Thus to these Anglicans, the Jews have turned
into Nazis — and all because they are trying to prevent themselves >from
being wiped out in another genocide.

The scale of this moral inversion and the singling out of the Jews for
such racial libels amount to incitement to hatred against Israel and a
deadly propaganda weapon aimed by Christians at the heart of the Jewish
people.

This hatred is being fuelled by the viciously distorted accounts of
Israel’s history and present circumstances which pour out of Christian aid
agencies and church newspapers in an unstoppable torrent, and by the very
close links between senior Anglicans and radical Christian Arab clerics.

The report praises, for example, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, Riah
Abu El-Assal and Canon Naim Ateek. Both these figures are key exponents of
replacement theology, the doctrine that underpinned centuries of Christian
anti-Jewish hatred by claiming that the Jews have forfeited all God’s
promises to them because they denied the divinity of Christ. Bishop Riah,
for example, has claimed of Palestinian Christians: ‘We are the true
Israel… no-one can deny me the right to inherit the promises, and after
all the promises were first given to Abraham and Abraham is never spoken
of in the Bible as a Jew…He is the father of the faithful.’ While Ateek,
who is lionised by Anglicans, uses the imagery of the deicide to vilify
Israel as the crucifiers of the Palestinians who play the part of Christ.

The ACC’s decision puts an enormous question mark against the way Jews
currently relate to the Christian world. At a stroke, it has exposed the
irrelevance of inter-faith dialogue and particularly the effectiveness of
the Council of Christians and Jews. That organisation eventually produced
a lamentably feeble and evasive comment about the ACC drama, just as it
has tried to dismiss previous concerns about the anti-Israel animus of the
Anglican church — all because it is paralysed by fear of rocking the boat.
Well, that boat has now well and truly sunk beneath the waves of
prejudice.

The time has surely now come for a fresh approach. Many decent Christians
are appalled by the ACC’s position. Jews must now make common cause with
them to expose the lies and fight the divestment mania that is now
erupting among Christian churches and NGOs across the world. Instead of
self-indulgent inter-faith talking shops, Jews need to start building
relationships with individual parishes, giving Christians at all levels of
the church a crash course in the history and present realities of the
Middle East, taking them to Israel and opening their eyes to the truth —
and publicly denouncing the lies that are being told.

After the Shoah, the Catholic church addressed the part that its own
anti-Jewish theology had played in that catastrophe and tried to make
amends. The Anglican communion, by contrast, never faced up to it. Now it
faces a moral abyss.

(author unknown)

(cited in Stoker Greenwood's Navy, E Greenwood, Midas Press 1983)

Drinking for the Empire, boozing for the Raj,
Sozzling for the honour of the Flag,
After quarts of Planters Punch,
And a very special lunch,
No wonder that our knees begin to sag.
But we stagger back at Sunset to put on our Mess Undress,
And bloody but unbowed go racing back,
To have a little snorter,
With the Governor's lovely daughter,
For the honour of the dear old Union Jack.

Drinking for the Empire, boozing for the Crown,
Sozzling for the good old Union Jack,
We never make a fuss,
'Cause they're all alike to us,
Whether white, or nearly white, or merely black,
They come aboard in thousands every time we enter port,
No wonder that our wine bills are so large,
From shoving tots of Coatses,
Down a thousand thirsty throatses,
For the prestige of the glorious British Raj.

Drinking for the Empire, sozzling for the Flag,
Boozing for Brittania Rules the Waves,
We display the well known verve,
Of the Fleet in Which we Serve,
And show them how an Englishman behaves.
Though the party may be bloody, we keep stiff the upper lip,
And never let the locals get us down,
Crying Dulce et Decorum,
We must drain another jorum,
To tbe never dying credit of the Crown.

Drinking for the Empire, boozing for the Queen,
Sozzling for the country of the free,
When the Social Sec. compels,
We all land at seven bells,
For cocktails, bridge and dancing with H.E.,
Though the body's feeling jaded, and the tongue is somewhat furred,
And a peaceful night aboard would be just grand,
Our weary limbs we gird on,
Assume the white man's burden,
For the honour of the dear old Motherland.

Drinking for the Empire, boozing for the Flag,
Soaking for the balance of World Power,
They are many we are few,
But we know wttat each must do,
And men shall say "This was their finest hour" ,
We will sozzle in the ballroom, and sozzle on the beach,
We will sozzle on the hillside, we will sozzle on the street,
But we never will surrender,
Being guardians of the splendour,
Of a Nation that has never known defeat.

memo for: Rotary (3 levels) {Rod please pass to them}
Habitat for Humanity {ditto}
Keith Hay Homes Ltd (ditto}
Kestle International Unltd
Dr Edric Baker, Kaulakuri diabetic clinic,
Bangla Desh
Prof R B Elliott

TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
L R B Mann _Agric Eng'g Aus 24_ (1) 39-42 1995
(attached sans diagrams)


A. SOLAR THERMAL & COSMIC COOLING & PV ROOFS

Three categories within the roof are required on a bldg if it is to
be autonomous for low-power lighting, solar aircond, and some other
electrical demands e.g a small efficient frig, and hot water for hygiene.

The 3 types of roof should overlap, forming a single surface
membrane minimally prone to storm damage. If the PV panel is low down on a
suitable flank of roof, the water from further up cleans it. The junction
corrugated-metal/planar PV requires a compressible seal e.g Compriband.
The junction corrugated-metal/ SWH glazing consists simply of a normal
overlap, as the glazing is Suntuf clear polycarbonate of the same
'wavelength' as Lysaght corrugated 'tin'.

SWH can readily be 8 - 10 sq m of the roof, ca. 1/10 of total roof
area. Most of the rest will be dark metal (with no paper under it -
obviated by prevention of condensation). The smallest category of roof
will be PV - say, 3 sq m (giving several hundred W peak, for charging
batteries).

A dark metal roof is the energy converter - free - for solar
airconditioning. The extremes of temperature are curbed, and airborne
insects thoroughly excluded. The air in the building is changed several
times each hour and very thoroughly filtered of not only mosquitoes etc but
also pollen and other nuisances.

0.1 kW of electricity consumed by the solar aircond gives a few kW
of solar heating (if wanted in cool seasons), a few kW of cooling on clear
summer nights, and daytime ventilation (with some cooling especially if a
basement is used for the air intake). In tropical hospitals, cosmic
cooling on summer nights is probably the most valuable benefit, and coupled
with abolition normal needs for opening windows will keep both patients &
staff healthier.

B. PV ROOF SECTIONS - and required storage batteries etc.

I have no experience in sizing or installing PV or ancillaries
(batteries, inverters). I can however put designers in touch with
experienced firms who have done this type of work. Much expertise, and
some impressive manufacture, are concentrated in the N. NSW rural
resettlement scene around Nimbin, but big firms e.g Siemens are doubtless
OK. I would like to be involved in these aspects of design, as I hope the
Rotary-funded hospitals in Vanuatu & Solomons will serve to refine design
and to decrease costs for the Bangla Desh hospital retrofits.

The solar aircond requires 80 W (max) for the fan, and < 20 W for
the automatic controller & losses, adding to 100 W in round figures. At
the slower ('idle') speed this demand decreases to ca. 30 W. Average
demand of the solar aircond depends on climate but should therefore be <70
W - equivalent to a smallish light bulb.

DC fans exist but it will probably be easiest to stick to the well
proven AC 80 W fan with its AC controller. No great losses are entailed.

C. EQUIPMENT SUPPLY

For the solar aircond, the two key requirements are:-

1 Crompton-Greaves 'Hi-Breeze' 80 W fans

These are the best quality available, and essential for the solar
aircond (because they do not burn out on sudden reversal at full power).
There being no NZ agent for C-G, it would seem best to import a 20'
container (1600 fans) - roughly NZ$50,000 FOB Bombay. For my own
continuing developments I would want to buy only a small minority of these.
I hope therefore that a plan can be made to use most of them in new NZ
houses within a suitable time.

BTW since these are the best ceiling fans, a small rate of sale of
them for use as ceiling fans could in principle be organised; but this is
essentially a sideline which for simplicity would be avoided. They would
retail to a discerning buyers willing to pay ca.$90 for top quality instead
of ca.$70 for an inferior Chinese fan.

2 Automatic Controller

The Probine prototype works fine; next, the printed-circuit
production model has to be manufactured. I have friends experienced in
this line of work. Trevor Probine expects to produce the specs for that
mfr shortly.

In the event of simple domestic installations of solar aircond in
the near future, before the automatic controller is available in numbers,
the ordinary Crompton-Greaves manual controller can be installed
temporarily. But it is hoped to bypass this phase, installing the auto
controller from the start.

Estimates for the cost of the controller are expected within a few
weeks.

The first few hundred, or more, would be made in NZ under close
control of my friends. I am about to explore with a USA 'king of The China
Price' what would be involved in mfg in China when thousands are wanted.
Many hundreds of thousands of bldgs in NZ can economically be retrofitted
with solar aircond, but the highest priority is tropical hospitals. In
principle the latter can be cross-subsidised from the former (ca.$3500
installed - v profitable if well managed). Within NZ my idea is to
install on Habitat + K Hay new homes. The actual extra capital cost of the
solar aircond is, in new construction, approximately cancelled by the lack
of need for bldg paper under the roof and for most of the opening windows.
Running costs for these new homes are considerably lower than normal, and
the protection from airborne allergens will prevent some asthma attacks.
The homes are thus cheaper & healthier than typical NZ homes, from a highly
economic investment. I do not propose withholding these benefits from the
wealthy, but envisage first deployment for the good of fairly poor people.

For the SWH, main requirements are:-

Suntuf
Expanded polystyrene or equivalent
Foil
Scrap copper HW cyls for collector
New or good refurb attic HW cyl „240 litre
New 15m rolls of semi-soft 20mm copper pipe

* * *
-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

SIMPLE RETROFITTED FLAT-PLATE SOLAR WATER- and AIR-HEATERS

L R B Mann

Agric Eng'g in NZ confab, Lincoln, Aug 1994;
pub'd in Agric Eng’g Aus 24 (1) 39-42 1995

Introduction This paper could be subtitled "The Goldmine in Your Attic". Since the peak flux of energy from the sun is 1 kW/m2 (approx. half visible and half IR), the typical Australasian house roof of area ca.120 m2 receives about 100kW solar radiation, peak (about 20kW mean). Only a few percent of this need be harnessed to make the house considerably more pleasant and healthy. Much or all of that roof can serve as flat-plate solar-thermal devices: 3 - 4 m2 of glazed black copper harvests a kW or so into hot water, and the rest of the roof a similar thermal power in room-warming air pumped from under a ridge down into one or more rooms.

The bulk of typical Australasian household energy end-uses being low-temperature heat (water- & room-heating), if these solar-thermal retrofits can supply only a large minority of those consumptions they have the potential, if widely deployed, to supplant several power stations.

Both of the solar-thermal roof modifications reported here have been designed & implemented as retrofits, but are readily incorporated (and more efficient) in new construction. The two technologies are sketched in order.

(a) SWH can be made cheaper by building them in situ into the roof. Much packaging & freight, and the collector factory, are obviated. Thermal losses are decreased. The majority of domestic water-heating energy (in summer, 100 - 200 L/d at 60 °C) has been supplied from this type of collector comprising a small part (3 - 4 m2) of the roof for each building.

Recent improvements in materials and design make this a relatively economical investment. Because the glazing of the SWH is the roof for that area, this approach starts with a credit of $100 or more from roofing saved. Glazing satisfactory so far has been polycarbonate ('Suntuf') or modified acrylate ('Durolite'), both UV-protected by a film on the upper side. The copper collector sheet transfers heat by a heat-conductive glue into 10 - 15m of 20mm copper pipe thermosyphoning to an attic tank. The back of the collector sheet is unusually well insulated - typically, foil then 10cm of styrofoam. The back of that insulation is in a warm, sheltered attic rather than in the wind; and any heat that does get through goes into system (b).

Selective surfaces can net more energy owing to low IR emissivity. So far I have used Solkote Hi/Sorb-II paint (Solar Energy Corp., Princeton N.J., USA) which is claimed, if sprayed very thin, to have emissivity only 28% that of ordinary matt-black paint. [addendum 2002: the CuS layer lining an old copper HW cylinder is a free, and suspectedly selective, matt black surface. No paint is needed.]

If it is desired to increase the area of collector (say, to 6m2 or even more), the marginal costs & losses are low. The returns from increasing area require detailed R&D, because both performance and economics are different from those of adding conventional factory-made modular boxes.

Conventional thermostatted electrical 'topping-up' is readily provided, either in the thermosyphon tank or in an existing 'hot water cupboard' tank. The latter tandem-tanks system is arguably preferable, despite larger thermal losses. The topping-up required by the 2m2 single-tank prototype has averaged 3 kWh/d (i.e. 0.13 kWe) in its 2.5y operation. [updated at 8.5y: 3.0 kWh/d]

This device was designed on criteria for DIY appropriate technology, suitable for handymen. No welding or soldering is needed. It is readily adaptable for tradesman-based installation. The labour in situ is about 2 man-d.

Design of flat-plate SWH often gives some emphasis to optimising the tilt (to e.g. the latitude + 10°), in some examples even arranging to vary that tilt seasonally. This assumes that the radiation to be captured originates from an arc of the ecliptic, and that the collector efficiency drops substantially when the flat plate is not normal to the rays. That is not the best model for regions like Auckland where the 'average sky' is so cloudy that it is more like a hemispherical diffuser dome. Being constrained to the pre-existing roof tilt (often as low as 25°) is therefore less disadvantageous than some textbooks are often taken to imply. Similarly, the most experienced local flat-plate SWH installers tell me that, even when geometry is further handicapped by absence of any suitable north-facing roof flank, installation on an east or west flank requires in Auckland only some 30-40% extra area to achieve similar performance. It is easy for a focussing animal like us to forget how little orientation matters for flat-plate collectors.

Plumbing for optimal performance needs some R&D and then codification, but some principles have emerged already (within the constraint that mains-pressure hot water systems in my opinion exemplify inherently wasteful vulgar brutalism):-

(1) The attic tank is best bought and installed as bare copper. It is thus cheaper and lighter (but also more fragile). Only after slinging, propping, and plumbing is it insulated - and then far more thoroughly than even the recent standard. The first step, omitted in a conventional clad cylinder, is to polish and lacquer the copper, decreasing its IR emissivity. Temperature sensors may be stuck on at several altitudes; the lowest might operate through a relay the electrical top-up heating (if that is in this cylinder). Glass-wool blanketing is then wrapped on, and finally foil. The resulting insulation can readily improve on even the recent blown-foam standard. The galvanised cladding of normal cylinders would be, in this application, a waste and unnecessary weight.

(2) If there is no attic, the thermosyphon tank will have to be installed on the roof, with suitable weatherproof cladding. The alternative of abandoning the thermosyphon I leave to those who are willing to grapple periodically with replacing pump seals etc. I point out the irony of being unable to use your SWH when the mains are off for an extended period. But of course it is true that pumped systems give far greater freedom of tank positioning. The claim that they also give 25% more stored heat I would like to see tested.

(3) Copper plumbing is not very much more expensive than polybutylene, but is harder for the untrained like me to instal. Those who choose polybutylene should prefer brass to plastic fitting inserts, and should be aware that pinhole leaks are expected in 15y, especially if the water is high in chloride. Trays and ducts (e.g. scrap roofing & spouting) should be installed to drain to eaves.

(4) Insulation of vents is oddly neglected. A straight open pipe may well pour a few score watts into the sky; a 'shepherd's crook' with push-on weatherproof foam is the least that is needed. Pressure-relief valves on vents allow shorter vent pipes and may thus pay for themselves (about $50) ultimately; but they become preferable in my opinion only for single-tank systems which otherwise require very tall vents to give sufficient dynamic head. In that connection, supply through header tanks, rather than pressure-reducing valves, should certainly be considered. Among their advantages is obviation of roof-penetrations for venting.

It is hoped to set up a test-bed for SWH at a university. A realistic drawoff geometry and schedule is important; MJ delivered into a tank is not a sufficient criterion of performance. The rather exact requirement for a milking shed may deserve priority.

(b) Solar-assisted Air Conditioning The rest of a house roof acts as a flat-plate air warmer. The efficiency (power gained per unit area) of that collector is low, but the large area compensates, and the price is right. Much of a 1908 Auckland wooden bungalow is warmed by several degrees, obviating other heaters, over much of a typical day. Time-temperature graphs have been logged on a Hewlett-Packard 7132A strip-chart recorder using two LM335 (10 mV/°K) cf. Hutton's earlier success using the AD590 (1µA/°K), to compare the in-house temperatures with those achieved by known electric heater powers. The yield of warm air brought down into the living space by thermostatically-controlled fans can readily average 5 kWh/d for a couple of hundred days each year (Auckland winter, spring and autumn), roughly equivalent to the thermal power of an electric radiator (500 - 2500 W), from investing the electrical power of a smallish light-bulb (90W max, far less idling). The effect can be likened to that of a heat-pump with a C.O.P. in the range 10 - 50; but of course the hours of working are much more limited.

This general concept has been implemented by Hutton, the CSIRO special house hear Melbourne, and at least two other research versions in Australasia, and several 'box in the attic' commercial versions using centrifugal blowers. My versions have all used axial fans.

The simplest fan is a 30W bathroom-exhaust type mounted just below the ridge and pushing air down by a duct. More versatile & powerful is a reversible 80W 'ceiling' fan, dia. 90 or 120 cm, mounted above the ceiling in a duct 50 - 200cm high.

Fan control uses two LM335: when the temperature excess at the ridge drops below one degree, fan(s) speed is automatically lowered. Shutters are generally not needed, as the lower of the two fan speeds is sufficient to prevent warm air floating back up into the attic.

This class of fan-air system is indicated by the next 6 paragraphs to be a good example of a solution-multiplier (the Clivus composting toilet being a classic example). Stratification within the living-space is considerably rectified; on the lower ('idling') of the two speeds between which the fan is automatically switched, this benefit is still significant. The 10-1 kWt from lights and other electrical devices is thereby made more effective towards room-heating. Fan-duct systems for recirc only were sold by e.g. Warmaire in the late 1970s and calculated by G Leach to be more cost-effective than adding insulation to moderately-insulated ceilings.

Standard polyester filters from air-conditioners are incorporated at ceiling level, giving unusually clean air. Protection from airborne allergens may be, for some occupants, the most valuable benefit of this technology.

It is not strictly correct to say that such fan systems decrease the humidity of the warmed air, but they do dry the house very considerably. They are far better value for that purpose than $500 refrigerator-type dehumidifiers.

The whole living-space is slightly pressurised. In districts where significant radon percolates up from underfloor, its levels in the living-space are therefore presumably decreased. Dust exclusion is also assisted.

There are extremely cost-effective incidental benefits for window security. The turnover of air in the living-space is normally such that no window need be opened for months, so barrel locks with keys, too cumbersome for frequent operation, become convenient.

Roof longevity is enhanced by evaporation of condensation from the underside of the metal. Not only the galvanising but also the purlins will last longer because they are wet less.

The air warmed normally enters the building under the eaves. Large-scale internal recirculation has also been tested, using an internal stairway; this appears to give, as expected, faster warmup but less total energy gained. The ratio of fresh to recirc air needs research.

A "leaky thermal diode" may be a useful image to keep in mind when designing this type of active flat-plate collector.

The typical attic is, in summer, like a warm-air 'balloon' at 55 - 60 °C. Given ridge-level vents, this can entrain air lofted from the living-space by reversing the fans, giving solar-assisted whole-house ventilation. The replacement air sucked into the living-space comes preferably from a cool basement. Airborne animals can be filtered at one or more stages.

[addendum 2002 The Fourth Mode: on clear summer nights the fast-down mode gives a few kW of cosmic cooling.]

Ordinary dark-red or dark-green roof paint is said to absorb solar energy about 70% as well as matt black. After I painted my dark-red roof with dark brown I was surprised to find for some months decreased efficiency. I think the gloss of the new paint was the (temporary) difficulty, and I continue to suppose that dark brown (acrylic) is the best readily available paint for the purpose.

Hutton's 5 houses had tile roofs; in the Melbourne climate even this inferior membrane proved a collector of worthwhile efficiency. Anodised matt black aluminium might well be thermally much better roofing.

An improved sub-class of roof would have (UV-protected) glazing outside the roof. Tile roofs might well benefit most, proportionally; for metal roofs, special paint would presumably be needed for the higher metal-surface temperatures, and might as well be a selective coating. This glazing would extend the peak power, but especially the net annual energy, from the class of solar air-heater we are considering.

Like SWH this technology needs, and readily incorporates, topping-up (e.g. by electrical fan-heaters at outlets from ducts).

A main potential improvement is aerofoil fan-blades rather than (or fitted over) standard crude stamped-steel blades. More heat per unit noise is the goal, noise being the only evident drawback of this technology.

Some useful heat-storage can be incorporated in each building; salt (e.g. CaCl2) hydrates appear most suitable but have yet to be acquired.

(c) Barriers to Deployment Reviewing the literature of the late 1970s, especially Lovins' Soft Energy Paths and ensuing controversy, one is struck by the inertia of technology in the face of valid argument, and the resulting lack of progress in R&D, let alone deployment, of the technologies required for transition to sustainable energy systems. In that period, Lovins identified solar room-heating as a main, and solar water-heating as a lesser, opportunity for saving electricity and/or other forms of energy. More recently he identified electric motors and controls as a major arena for increased efficiency of electricity usage. Last time I heard him here, he was identifying expensive fluorescent lights as a major saving which electricity retailers might well give away and which you think it might pay you to buy (at least briefly while you listen to him, until he intones "it's pure arbitrage"). Scientists & engineers involved in appropriate technology should think hard about why almost two decades of Lovins-type proof that soft energy technologies are 'economic' has not resulted in much deployment of such technologies. My own tentative explanations are:-

(i) the renewable-energy systems which Lovins so plausibly advocated in the late '70s did not all exist in readily available forms;

(ii) distortions of finance & propaganda continued to favour electric grids;

(iii) schools of engineering and artytechture continued, indefensibly, to neglect soft-energy concepts in teaching and research.

Can these disciplines be rescued from the burgeoning fog of digital confusion? If so, it will entail serious design and, especially, practical work which I hope my inventions will stimulate. I have throughout hinted at questions for R&D, and would be glad to co-operate with researchers pursuing any. I am advised that concept (b) is not susceptible of patenting. I warn against hijacking by digital-control fanatics.

Acknowledgements The prototype SWH was constructed with help from members of Solar Action. The electronic control and monitoring systems were designed and made by Clifford Wright, U. of Auckland Architecture dept.

Refs.
Guthrie K 1994 'A review of Australia's solar water heater standards' Solar Progress 15 (2) 12-13.
Hutton D R, Lecis I 1985 'A simple multichannel temperature recording system' J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum.18 822-3.
Hutton D R, Francey J L A 1985 'How to Use Your Home Roof & Attic as a Sun Space ...' Solar Progress 6 (2) 8-9
Lovins A et al. (ed. H Nash) 1979 'The Energy Controversy' San Francisco: Friends of the Earth.

This Ohso® writes vigorously from in the vicinity of San Francisco.

A Long And Twysted Road

Sure seems that way to me, Oh Gentle Lurkers of the net, but then I have
been navigating the curves of gender politics for some time now, and one
gets a little jaded. Still, as anyone sitting in front of a keyboard with
writers block can tell you, calling upon what the famed Redondo de Biscuit
once referred to as 'The imperative for creative naivety' (Harvard Lampoon
75: Big Book of College Life) as your personal muse, will only carry you
so far in the world of negotiating a keyboard, if you want to make letters
into words that is. For even with a corrupted spoolchucker to assist the
process, one must to come at least somewhat close to reality for even a
computer to decipher gibberish ...

However, as true aficionado of the art form can attest, when it comes to
genuinely rank hateful gibberish completely out of touch with any reality
save a burning core of Misandry (hatred of men), the tirades excreted by
the tenured harpys residing in the belfry that passes as "Womyn's Studies"
in the U.C. system are required reading. For it is here that we find the
answer to how rabid, frothing, hind foot thumping, feminazi psychodyke
hatemongers came to be in such positions of power, as to even stage their
own government sponsored anti-male hate riots, while still posing as
victims.

While there are no doubt as many hyrstorical claimants to "mothyrhood"
of the Frisco Dyke Hate Riot as there are flies in the fat dyke
porta-potty, special mention must be given at this time to two academic
giants in the field of hate: the former Rape Hysteria Facilitator (Cheri ’
gobbles Gurse) and hyr henchdyke enforcer (Rita "rohm" Spaur) at the
University of California at Goleta, in Santa Barbara County. These two
ran a Secret Thought Policing (the "Real" kind, with guns and badges)
operation that reached out far beyond campus, and in addition to punishing
anyone who dared criticize their regime, helped the local dyke coven start
the mini-hate march known at "Take Back the Night".

Like most Psychodyke inspired lunacy in the 80s, the "Take Back" march in
Santa Babylon was 99 percent hate, and one percent anal retentive obsessive
ideological mothyr duck herding. For example, one of the early rules was
that men Must march Three Paces Behind the Womyn, in support of the
Womyn's leadership in gender hate evangelizing, as well as the guiding
principle of Fat Dykes First in the Porta-Potties. Part of the problem
was that some men (including the ms.guided) came along to support their
female friends but not walk behind them, and they were chastised for such
ungood ideas.

More amusing was to watch these cotton pony cowgyrls tying to herd the
march with bullhorn hate chants (kind of like an ideological cattle drive,
only different), while simultaneously trying to maintain "order" by
keeping the right men behind the right womyn. See, the problem with the
whole plan was unless you have all the womyn march as a unit, and all the
men as one three paces behind, you are going to have the genders mixed
along the road. This was absolutely driving the Twysted Systerhood in to
a tizzy, as they tried to segregate men from the women they had come with
but keep them far enough apart that it appeared to their politically
measured eye that the womyn didn't appear to be marching behind the men
who were marching behind the womyn ahead.

It was this sort of insoluable conundrum that eventually led to scrapping
the idea of allowing any men into the streets at all; along with the fact
that it was easier to scream in rage at the hated and despised brutish
raping patriarchal oppressor if they were properly removed to the
sidewalks, rather than right behind you walking with their female friends.
Besides, any womyn who would actually consider a raping pig hyr "friend"
probably wouldn't make the degree requirements in gender studies anyway.

As for the hoary hate traditions started by gobbles gurse and gang so
long ago, well they did have a point I guess (really twysted of course),
After all - what use is it being a well paid rape baiting academic mau mau
artiste if you can't go out and rattle the hated pigs out of the streets
once in a while?

Best keep quiet about it though, wouldn't want to spread any "Ism-Obia"

What with everything else going around and all

Ohso

"Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external
reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The Heresy of Heresies was
Common Sense."

George Orwell's "1984" On the Thought Police