Wait! Maybe Britain needs to keep Lord Justice Laws

I suggested in jest that maybe we should put England’s sensible Lord Justice Laws on our Supreme Court, but maybe they still need rationalists over there. The Guardian has been using a stellar pro-science panel (Goldacre and Singh, to name two members) to quiz representatives of various political parties on their science stance. They just interviewed the United Kingdom Independence Party, whose representative was…Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. You have got to be kidding; that man is a raving loon. So the UKIP rejects the science of global warming, but advocates for homeopathy.

My favorite part, though, was their position on stem cell research.

Wherever stem cells can be obtained by means other than the killing of very small children, it is ethical only to obtain the stem cells by means that do not involve the loss of little lives. On this basis, there is no reason why Britain should not play a leading part in stem cell research.

That’s completely batty. Why, how can science proceed if we are not free to charge into schoolyards, butchering little tykes so we can harvest a few grams of cells from their guts? The summary of their science policy is damning.

Ukip is the only significant party to support homeopathy, and the only party apart from the BNP still in denial over climate change. The appointment of Viscount Monckton as a science spokesman adds to the air of a party of old British eccentrics.

Woeful.

The one sad bit of this lunatic party is that Pat Condell supports them. Say it ain’t so, Pat — how can anyone defend a party run by refugees from the looney bin?

The monarchy is reduced to this folly

Prince Charles always seemed like a walloping great dunderhead to me, and I see that my opinion has been confirmed. His great cause, the philanthropic purpose he’d like to be remembered for, is propping up the quackery of homeopathy and other such nonsensical therapies. And now one of his aides in this misguided impulse has been arrested for fraud. How appropriate. I doubt that Charles has done any embezzling — British royalty are rich enough that it would be superfluous — but it’s a shame that he won’t be arrested for the greater harm he has perpetrated.

Any system of hereditary transfer of leadership is going to be afflicted with the unfortunate vagaries of chance, compounded by the distortion of traditional privilege. Why the British continue to put up with this nonsense is a mystery…maybe one virtue of ninnies like Charles is that when an obvious fool sits on the throne, people will come to their senses.

(Nah, that won’t happen. We had a couple of palpable incompetents running the US for a while — Reagan and Bush the Younger — and we’ve still got people revering them.)

Republicans: petty and stupid

Yesterday, I linked to an offensive poll by Minnesota Republicans in district 42 (that’s one of the Minneapolis suburbs, by the way). My readers marched in, voted against their support for Arizona’s racial-profiling, anti-immigrant law, and completely skewed the results to be against the desired Republican outcome.

This happens often enough; the point is that these kinds of internet polls do not reliably produce accurate results, and it’s easy to twist a poll in a contrary way. Most often these polls are put up as a kind of exercise in self-affirmation, because, for instance, very few non-Republicans read the SD42 Republican web site, and what we do is subvert that backpatting purpose of the poll.

What typically happens then is that eventually the poll is archived or closed, and everybody moves on. It’s a freakin’ internet poll, you know — it’s inconsequential. Only…the Republicans of SD42 just can’t let it go. It’s apparently very important to them that they preserve their illusion that their readers support their policies in every possible way.

So what did they do? Multiple resets of the poll, throwing out all of the votes — for a while, they were resetting it every 10 minutes. Attempts to lock the poll: they’d let votes accumulate for a few minutes from a fresh start, and as soon as their side showed a slight edge, freeze it there (some of the readers here discovered an alternate path to the polling service and worked their way around it). Rewriting the answers, first to remove the stereotypical language, then to reverse the sense of the answers (we were not fooled), and now…and now, look at what they’ve done.

Do you believe in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws?

Yes. An orderly immigration policy is essential to maintaining a free society.
Yes. And that is why I support Arizona’s immigration law.

That is amazingly pathetic.

I declare this pharyngulation a total victory, the most complete demolition of a poll that we have ever accomplished. They are in a shambles, reduced to displaying meaningless noise that doesn’t even have a pretense of giving voters a choice.

Imagine if these clowns were actually running our real world election system…oh, wait. They are.

Once again, right-wing foot in right-wing mouth

This is Minnesota. We’re mostly pale and of Scandinavian/German ancestry up here, which means our local racists are mostly blithely confident and don’t have much opportunity to express themselves. We just saw one interesting example of a regional Republican party with a contemptuous attitude towards Hispanics…but you’ve got to go to the teabaggers to see that topped.

Members of the Mille Lacs Tea Party Patriots held the second annual Tea Party rally on Thursday, April 15 in Milaca. Roughly 60 people turned out for the event in which Sue Bican told attendees they must resolve to become active, to do something. “If we do nothing, we are no better than the Jews who stood in line for the gas chambers, Bican said.

Yes, because being a white Republican in Minnesota is exactly like being a hated minority targeted for extermination by racist Nazis.

Shall we mess up a local Republican poll?

You may have heard that Arizona has a draconian new immigration law that essentially legalizes racial profiling, and requires immigrants to carry their registration documents at all times…and by default, then, you better not be caught brown in Arizona without proof of citizenship, no matter what your legal status.

One of our local Republican districts has a poll on this issue. You will not believe the wording on it.

President Obama called the new Arizona bill banning illegal immigration “misguided”. Do you agree?

Sí, señor!
22%
No Way, José!
77%

They really need to add a cute little icon of the Frito Bandito to that, just to add a little more class. It’s especially funny because Minnesota is experiencing a growing influx of Hispanic workers, who are getting stuck with the essential but menial jobs of our agricultural economy. It seems like a bad idea for Republicans to be mocking a growing part of our electorate, but hey, if they want to shoot themselves in the voting booth, go ahead.

By the way, read it carefully. They are not asking if you approve of the immigration bill, they are asking if you approve of Obama’s dislike of the bill. If you think the bill is misguided, vote yes; if you think we need to crack down on the rising brown tide, vote no. I actually wonder if the current small vote for yes is the result of Republicans unable to puzzle out the question.

The Rethuglicans noticed. The poll has been reset, and the ridiculously stereotyped answers have been changed to a simple yes and no now. I guess we embarrassed them.

No sense of humour at all, Part II

I thought the whole Affair of the Mocking Memo was grossly overblown and absurd, but I had no idea how pretentious the Vatican could be. Now, because of an internal memo that made some mild jests about confronting the Pope on his British visit with the consequences of his policies, the silly men in dresses are threatening to stick their noses in the air, sniff, and refuse to come.

One highly-placed source in the Vatican said: “This could have very severe repercussions and is embarrassing for the British government – one has to question whether the action taken is enough.

“It is disgusting. Britain’s ambassador to the Holy See has been in to see the Secretary of State and explain what happened and this will all be relayed to the Pope.

“It’s even possible the trip could be cancelled as this matter is hugely offensive.”

Cardinal Renato Martino, the former head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said: “The British government has invited the Pope as its guest and he should be treated with respect.

“To make a mockery of his beliefs and the beliefs of millions of Catholics not just in Britain but across the world is very offensive indeed.”

Oh, “very offensive indeed.” Merely joking about asking the Pope to defend himself outrages the Vatican…but we’re supposed to overlook the effects his lies about birth control, disease, and the treatment of children have had on the world.

Stay home, Ratzi, stay home. Hide in your palace surrounded by your sleazy sycophants, and stuff up your ears when others dare to point out that you are an evil old man running a corrupt establishment.

No sense of humour at all

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

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

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

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

i-88319a73204a2a82f70e39e559c6d30e-popehat.jpeg

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

But no. Here’s the list of proposals.

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

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

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

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

National Day of Prayer needs more abolishin’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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