Dowsed in Bullshit

A very evil man has been jailed for 10 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22380368

It is one of those rare occasions where I think a custodial sentence should have been longer than it was.  James McCormick sold dowsing rods to vulnerable people (notably the Iraqi Government, although there's little commentary so far of which officials took bribes to contract for the dowsing rods) under the pretence they could detect various substances.  In this case the key claim was that the dowsing rods could detect explosives.  There is no record I am aware of of how many people died as a result of the sale of these dowsing rods.  McCormick made millions from the sale of these dowsing rods and it is now up to the Proceeds of Crime Act to make sure that all of his ill-gotten-gains from the sale of dowsing rods is recovered.  I am not hopeful.

But something that intrigues me about this story is the media's steadfast refusal to refer to dowsing rods.  How peculiar!  They are dowsing rods.  The BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Standard all fail to mention dowsing rods.  The BBC talks of 'swivelling antennas'.  Elsewhere they are detectors, devices, gadgets.  Anything but dowsing rods.  Should I say it again?  James McCormick has been jailed for knowingly selling useless dowsing rods.

Not all proponents of dowsing may be as criminally culpable as McCormick.  But still, people and (allegedly) major corporations and police forces waste lots of money on these useless devices.  Dowsing does not work.  It has been proven time and time again.  The local mad woman cannot detect water with an old coathanger.  Uri Geller cannot detect oil with something that is basically an old coathanger.  And James McCormick cannot detect explosives or anything else with his "swivelling antennas".

Where anyone has received money for dowsing of any description, the police should be taking an active interest.  We would not accept that being sold other goods and services under false pretences was just one of those things.  Why is it acceptable for proponents of dowsing, astrology, spiritualism, religion and all other types of mumbo jumbo to take money from people and get away with it?  Other than the consequences of their actions, how are they different to James McCormick?

World War Zee, Zed, Ž, Z, जेड?

My thoughts from blogs about the upcoming World War Z:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturevideo/filmvideo/9952332/New-World-War-Z-trailer-released-starring-Brad-Pitt.html#disqus_thread

27/3/13 - "The book was a brilliant idea and well executed. Not great literature, but it worked well enough. The film looks entertaining, but at best it will be just another in a long line of big-budget, spectacular disaster movies. It clearly has very little relationship to the book and nothing special to offer."

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/world-war-z/24963/what-weve-learned-from-the-world-war-z-trailer:

27/3/13 - "I'll probably see it for the spectacle, but I don't expect to be particularly edified by it. More 'Independence Day'/'The Day After Tomorrow' than 'The Quiet Earth'/'On The Beach'."

"a decent adaptation of WWZ is indefinitely postponed by this film. I would add that the producers are using excellent source material to sell tickets for something bearing lilttle resemblance to it. Many fans of the book will rightly feel agrieved at being sold $15/£10 tickets under false pretences."

"I so want this movie to be great, but after the b-movie car-crash that was Prometheus, my expectations of Hollywood are rock bottom. Hey, I may be completely wrong, but I see one more reason to be sceptical (Brit spelling): -
In the book, the virus appears to originate in China. No particular explanation is give, but I think it is implied that Chinese agricultural practices and/or official incompetence/secrecy are causal factors. Now here are two possibly connected facts. (1) China has just become the second biggest movie market in the world, overtaking Japan; (2) based on the trailer, the film appears to place the origin of the disease in Russia.
These two facts may not be connected. Even if they are, it doesn't mean the film will be rubbish. However, my suspicion is that the two facts are very much connected. I also suspect that this is indicative that the film makers have been prepared to sacrifice their art for a product that doesn't upset any major demographics.
So I'm anticipating a juvenile level of emotional engagement, a non-sensical script and a 'happy' ending that allows us to dismiss the fact that 5 billion people have been killed in the most horrific fashion. Will probably still go and watch it though :-)"

"And another thing.... the disease has a lengthy incubation period in the book. In the film (based on the trailer and leaked clips) zombification is instantaneous. But if there is a zombie outbreak on a plane, that implies a lengthy incubation period (for the first infected passenger). I hope the script writers have artfully squared this particular circle, but the industry has a nasty habit of treating viewers as idiots. We could be left with either a silly breakdown in consistency, or they might introduce some ridiculous deus ex machina (e.g. 'yeah, most people turn instantly, but SOME take a while...')"

19/4/13 - "And so it came to pass. Apparently the script will be tweaked, at least for releases in certain regions, so as not to offend the Chinese. Actually, I read that they are now saying the virus originated in India rather than Russia. Strange. I would have thought that by the time the 10th anniversary collectors edition Blueray comes out, India will be a significantly larger market for home video than Russia. Well, I suppose they can edit/overdub the film once again to make some other country the cause of all the nastiness. Maybe Syria?
But still, but still... the trailer looks great to me. Why are people bitching about the CGI. Looks bloody good to me.
PG-13? I appreciate that will limit the gore, but that really seems to miss the point. The idea of a global zombie pandemic is absolutely terrifying if done reasonably well, and from what I can tell so far, this one is done at least reasonably well. There will be an awful lot of children having nightmares in the wake of this film, and an awful lot of dumb parents upset that their children saw it."

"Ah, apparently the rogue zombie was trapped in the aeroplane's internal lift until freed by an irritating chihauhau (one Hollywood trope that is actually accurate). So, no special pleading there then on the part of the scriptwriters! Though as it happens I gather they ARE going to have the concept that some people turn at slower speeds than most. How convenient for dramatic purpose."

Steal This Album

A report has found that music piracy has little impact on music sales.  In fact, there was some debatable evidence that illegal download sites create a marginal increase in legal sales.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720

The report was prepared by the European Commission's in-house 'science service'.  I mention this as the European Commission is not an organisation known for its antipathy to industry and support for anarchy.

Natuarally the response of the music industry has been measured.  "The findings seems disconnected from commercial reality" said the IFPI.

That's right, the plight of the industry is all down to illegal downloading and the perps must be pursued with extreme prejudice.  It has absolutely nothing to do with changing teenage interests, and the extreme cynicism of the music industry.

The first point is an inconvenient fact that the fat cats in the music world choose to discount.  Record sales enjoyed an incredible boom bookended broadly by the appearance of Elvis Presley on US televisions and the invention of the video cassette player.  It had its day and has been in decline ever since.  It may be that it has reached a level now.  I certainly hope so as I am an enormous consumer of music and hate to think that tomorrow's Dylan/Bowie/Prince will be disinclined to make a career out of it.  There is currently a good living to be made form music.  It's just that the label executives and A&R men are no longer flown around the world on private jets.  Shame.

My second point is, well, the point.  While nothing could have been done to sustain record sales at 1970's levels, the industry itself has accelerated the decline by its own promotion of mindless crap.

At this point, I should perhaps point out that I believe (i) that all decades produced an abundance of rubbish music and that (ii) there continues to be brilliant music produced across the rock and pop spectrum from ambient to electronica to contemporary r&b to hip-hop to house to heavy metal.

However, there has been a change in the music world.  Whereas the early days of rock & roll produced plenty of 'commercial' pap (e.g. Ricky Nelson's early efforts) it has now become virtually the sole raison d'etre of the industry.  Why promote a band like IAMX when you can sell countless facsimile's of David Gray's drone?  Why invest in the next Caribou when Adele is on the front cover of the Sunday supplements?  Why sign someone like Battles when Lady GaGa has just got her tits out for the paps?  And why bother doing anything when Simon Cowell has one of his godawful, talentless showroom dummies to flog?

I am not claiming that the industry should abandon commercial considerations.  On the contrary, I am saying that in order to achieve sustainable, long-term viability it needs to try an awful lot harder than it has.  Yes, sell Katy Perry ringtones, but don't put all your eggs in that one particular basket.  Invest in real artists and in 25 years' time you will be able to sell the 65 million-bit, expanded, producer's-cut version of their albums.  Can you say that about Robbie Williams?  Seriously now, can you?

The IFPI wants to blame its customers and potential customers for its decline.  I suggest it should take a long, hard look in the mirror.

Man That You Fear

Sanity appears to have prevailed.  A man in Leicester who publicly tore pages from a Koran is not to be convicted of causing 'harassment, alarm or distress' to our religious friends.  Phew!

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/01/jury-dismissed-in-leicester-trial-of-man-accused-of-ripping-up-his-koran--no-retrial-planned

But, obviously, why the hell did this go to court?  What the hell was the CPS doing bringing charges?  Why the hell were the police involved in the first place?  Britain is no longer great if we cannot freely insult people who believe in medieval fairy tales.  It really, truly is that simple.  Religion is bollocks.  And people who believe in it are... generally... idiots.

The reason this piece particularly caught my attention was that I too have interacted with the Islamic Information Centre.  About 2 years ago in an idle moment I approached their stall in Leicester to peruse their wares.  I came away with a couple of pamphlets explaining how cosmology and modern science proves the existence of God... the God of their religion, natch.  The sort of rubbish that Jehovah's Witnesses will also hand you if you ask, but in that case the evidence apparently points to a different variant of God.  Strange.  Needless to say, the science and arguments in said pamplets are laughably childlike and prove only one thing - a major contributory factor in the propogation of the religion meme is utter ignorance of modern science.

While at the stall I had a quick chat with a nice chap from the IIC.  When I mentioned my interest in science he started telling me how the evidence supported his religious views.  When I demurred, he asked me something like 'so how do you explain how God created the Universe?'  To which I responded words to the effect 'oh, I don't believe in that nonsense'.  I didn't think much of it at the time, but in hindsight I could, at a stretch, have been charged with causing criminal offence.  This latest case suggests it is unlikely that I would have been successfully prosecuted, but that is hardly the point, is it?

Another thing.  At the same time as the IIC is handing out leaflets in the centre of Leicester, christian religious nutters can sometimes be seen and heard barking their dogmatic crap into a megaphone just across the way.  Presumably this is a deliberate response to the presence of the IIC.  Now, are these christians to be prosecuted for causing offence to their islamic competitors?  Personally I find their rants far more offensive than the low-key approach of the IIC and infinitely more offensive than the chap who ripped up a copy of the Koran.  So, an interesting idea - someone being prosecuted in an English court with causing criminal offence to muslims by publicly stating their christian beliefs.  A very juicy prospect for the sane amongst us!  Sadly unlikely to happen.  If it did, the sheer idiocy of it would bring the whole 'respect for religion' conceit crashing down around our ears.  And there are too many votes at stake for the current crop of spineless politicans to allow that.

Losing My Religion

I hate religion.  I am disgusted when people promote or defend religion.  I dispair when people express even vaguely 'spiritual' beliefs.  Why on earth would believe in a sky fairy?  Sadly, in recent years religion has become increasingly prominent in British public life.

My consolation is that the term 'recent years' chronologically speaking is a tremendously parochial term.  Obviously the human race is becoming increasingly secularist.  What else would it do with hundreds of years of intellectual development?  "Oh well, we know there is this thing called 'science' that has given us all of the benefits that we experience constantly, but nevertheless we'll choose to regress to an earlier time of ignorance".  No, reason will win the day.  But for short bursts, superstition appears to gain the upper hand.  And, despite the bigger picture, that makes me sad.

Consolation?  That very few people actually believe the crap spouted by the men in dresses.  They just become more... tolerant to it.  Especially when the prevailing public mood is negative (thanks George; thanks UKIP).

So come on people, cheer me up.  Tell Cameron that you're not going to fall for his Big Society bollocks.  That religion should not get tax breaks.  That you want policy based on reason, not magic.

Hey Hey We're The Monkees

Now that the poppy charity collectors have disappeared, the Pudsy brigade are out in force.  I had to run the gauntlet of guilt and shame in Euston Station this morning by not giving a contribution to any of the numerous bucket rattlers.

However, there was a man collecting at Mansion House tube station for this:

http://www.orangutan.org.uk/

which I thought was dedicated and brave, given the emotional blackmail emanating from the massed ranks of Children In Need collectors (most of whom, incidentally, I assume are good people acting for what they consider are all the very best reasons).

It’s always also worth noting that the Government should be funding Children In Need’s UK causes, and world governments should be funding their 3^rd world causes.  In other words the wealthy and big business should be paying their share, rather than relying on the regressive taxation of charity giving (as we all know, the poor contribute more proportionately than the rich to charity, therefore any charity that should reasonably be funded by Government is, in fact, a regressive form of tax).  Uncomfortable as this is, the Conservative Government, the wealthy and large corporations are delighted whenever you give to charity.  It delays for another day the time when they have to pay just a little more tax.

The apes of Asia are unlikely to get any material support from government. So I gave the orangutan man what change I had and in doing so noticed that his collection box was empty.  I guess people had already given their money to more high profile causes.

 

Mutter

Apparently the Republic of Ireland would rather let a healthy young woman die than terminate a foetus of dubious viability.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Ah, how I dispise all those bastards in the Catholic hierarchy that think this is an acceptable state of affairs.  No country is perfect, but the imposition of medieval superstitions on a modern western country would be shocking beyond belief, were it not a widely recognised fact.

When will the Irish grow up and demand that abortion is legalised?  Surely it can't be long, given the rapid decline in religious belief in Ireland and across the world.  Tragically it will be too late for Praveen Halappanavar, whose young wife is dead.