Just when you thought things couldn’t get any more stupiderer, a recent US university massacre has apparently triggered a push for more guns on the campus:

IN WHAT seems a distinctly American response to a distinctly American problem, last week’s Illinois university shooting appears only to have spurred a push to allow students to carry guns.

An internet-based lobby, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, wants lawmakers to overrule university boards that ban guns on campus, so that staff and students could arm themselves against mass killers.

I am literally speechless. (Lucky I can still type.) Where do you start with insane troll logic like this?

A South Dakota state politician, Tom Brunner, has vowed to re-introduce a failed bill that would allow guns to be carried onto university grounds.
Mr Brunner argues that if people were mature and responsible enough to vote, they should not be left “disarmed and defenceless” on college campuses.

Seriously? Has he seen some of the cretins that are eligible to vote? I would feel safer if some of them weren’t allowed to reproduce let alone have control of a semi automatic ranged weapon.

A gun control advocate, Paul Hemke, said last week’s tragedy was the sixth such shooting in the US in the past fortnight, and permitting guns into a volatile environment was not a solution.”Adding more guns into the dorm rooms, into the bars with a group of students who drink a lot, have tensions, fights with their girlfriends, that’s just going to cause more violence,” Mr Hemke, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence told Fox television.

Well, sure - if you want to bring logic into the situation. One would presume that the lunatics who carry out these massacres have to circumvent some form of security (which may or may not be adequate) and that any such security becomes inherently harder to enforce if people are actually allowed to carry around hidden firearms. A Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) spokesman counters this argument:

Mr Lewis disputes that more guns on campus would mean more risk. Mr Lewis is not dissuaded by a 2002 episode in which a Gulf War veteran, who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon, killed three people, including two professors at the University of Arizona because he was failing a nursing course.

“A 1997 FBI study found that most real-world shoot-outs last less than 10 seconds and take place at close range,” he said.

“You don’t have to be a crack shot. I fail to see how five to 10 seconds of exchanged fire at close range will result in anything worse.”

He fails to see how 10 seconds of exchanged fire with ten guns could result in a worse outcome than with one gun? Is he stupid? Well, gee let me think, it could be anything up to ten times worse.

Innocent bystanders have been hurt and killed accidentally in many cases of police intervention, and they are specifically trained to handle these kind of situations. Giving people guns might give them the ability to defend themselves, but it does not automatically endow the bearer with the judgment to do so safely or effectively.

Avast maties! Thar be poi-rats on them thar inter-toobs! Yar-har!

AS THE internet threatens to kill the established music industry, the Rudd Government is considering a three-strikes policy against computer users who download songs illegally.

The Government will examine new legislative proposals being unveiled in Britain this week to target people who download films and music illegally. Internet service providers (ISPs) there might be legally required to take action against users who access pirated

Interesting. I wonder how are they planning to approach it this time?

Under the three-strikes policy, a warning would be first issued to offenders who illegally share files using peer-to-peer technology to access music, TV shows and movies free of charge. The second strike would lead to the offender’s internet access being suspended; the third would cancel the offender’s internet access.

The policy would mirror legislation being introduced in Britain, which would require ISPs to police the activities of users.

Looks a lot like passing the buck to me. The government can’t handle it, so they pass legislation to force the ISP to. Not only is the onus of enforcement then put onto the provider rather than the interested party, but the financial burden as well.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the Government was aware of the views put by the music industry for a code of conduct for ISPs to address file-sharing by subscribers.

“We will also examine any UK legislation on this issue [including any three-strikes policy] with particular interest,” he said.

This is the same Steven Conroy that wants an opt out ISP filtering system for web content. Fills me with confidence that my rights and privacy will be respected. No. Really.

Music Industry Piracy Investigations general manager Sabiene Heindl said her organisation had been lobbying for the policy for 12 months.

She said action had been taken to remove illegally downloaded tracks from blogs, Cyberlocker and BitTorrent sites but this had failed to stem the estimated 2.8 million Australians downloading music illegally last year.

Yes. It’s a big problem and it’s only getting worse.

Consultant Nick Dawes said a no-pay attitude had developed among young people because they did not fear any retribution.

Their attitude is: “If we can get it for free, why not?”

And there is the underlying problem. The whole paradigm of how we pay for these kind of things has shifted, and I suspect that eventually the whole business model of the music industry is going to have to change as well. I don’t have any easy answers, but with an increasingly technically aware population, this kind of war of escalation is just getting us nowhere. But at least it’s fast.

It’s amazing what gets reported as news:

THE Catholic Church has revealed how growing interest in satanism and the occult has led to a rise in exorcisms across Queensland.

Well, for starters this statement is a little misleading. To be clear, what is actually on the rise is the rate of exorcism ceremonies being carried out. There is no evidence to suggest that any of these anecdotally reported cases involves anything that could be construed as supernatural demonic possession.

One priest, who asked not to be named for fear of “reprisals”, said he was carrying out at least one exorcism a fortnight.

Reprisals from who pray tell? Satan? Demons? The police? Other, saner priests?

“Being possessed by a demon is terrifying in one’s mental and emotional life,” he said. “Some of these manifestations are extremely powerful, causing people to be plagued by disturbances. They hear voices and see hideous creatures in their sleep.

It’s really quite amazing how demons are so sneaky and clever that they manage to make the symptoms of their possession look almost exactly like indicators of mental illness. Tricky little beggars. And isn’t it great that people suffering from this don’t need any of that tricky and emotionally difficult therapy, pharmacological treatment or to accept any responsibility for their actions! Satan did it! Just read the bible at them and sprinkle some holy water around and their paranoid schizophrenia possession will clear right up.

“There has been a recruitment of pagan practices, and it’s sheer poison.

Argh. That’s not even a sentence - I can only guess that he means “recurrence” or “resurgence” or something like that. And what’s so bad about “pagan practices” anyway? I could lob my iPod from where I’m sitting and probably hit half a dozen people who would consider a lot of the dogma of the Catholic church to be “sheer poison” too - and with actual demonstrable examples to back it up, not just vague mumblings about those naughty, new agey pagans. Ooh. Look out, she’s got a crystal!

The Catholic Church has vowed to “fight the devil head-on” by training hundreds of priests as exorcists. Bishop Brian Finnigan, acting head of the Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane, said it was important for the church to carry out exorcisms.

Yeah, but then the Catholic church also thinks that it is important to prevent the use of birth control and condoms in areas of the world stricken by over population and disease. They think that people who have sex with people of the same gender should not have the same rights as heterosexuals. The Catholic church thinks that a lot of things are important. That doesn’t necessarily make them good things.

Father Gabriele Amorth, 82, the Pope’s Exorcist-in-Chief, announced the initiative recently amid church concerns about an increase in people dabbling in the occult. Under plans being considered, each bishop would have a group of priests in his diocese who were specially trained in exorcism.

Father Amorth said: “Too many bishops are not taking this seriously and are not delegating their priests in the fight against the devil. You have to hunt high and low for a proper, trained exorcist.”

Proper? Trained? Is there a diploma or something? Are there dodgy non-union exorcists out there that are ruining the reputation of the good exorcists?

Queensland Catholic priests can carry out exorcisms only if they have been authorised by an archbishop.

Because it’s a good thing that people who want to have a serious place at the table in debating the great social and moral issues of our time, believe in demons. Does anyone see a potential conflict here?

The priest source, who is based in Brisbane, is the only one permitted to do exorcisms in the state. He said he had travelled to Rockhampton, Cairns, Townsville and Toowoomba to save people.

“We are not very plentiful and certainly need more of us to cope with the big occult following that is emerging today,” he said.

“It’s frightening what can happen when you invite entities into your life which are not meant to be part of God’s world.”

He said one woman he had met had been plagued by demonic manifestations since taking part in a playground witch game as a child.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - just because something happens after something chronologically doesn’t mean that it was the cause. The “occult” is an easy target because it is such a nebulous description that there is no coherently accused party to defend. And just what constitutes a “demonic” manifestation anyway? Gah! (Sometimes you so caught up smacking your forehead against the logical fallacies in a piece like this that it’s easy to forget the stupidity of the basic premise.)

I know that at first blush this just sounds like just another silly fluff piece, but there are deeper issues here. Exorcism is not a game, and it’s not harmless. If you don’t believe in demonic possession, exorcisms are at best a waste of time, or at worst a pernicious superstitious ritual that prevents people from seeking real psychological help for real psychological conditions. Mix it with a bit of religious zealotry and it can result in profound psychological trauma and even death.

But those are dodgy back alley exorcists! I hear someone cry. Not properly trained and Pope accredited professionals!

Meh. It’s kind of like trying to distinguish between a good Magical Fairy Godmother and a bad Magical Fairy Godmother. When you can’t even demonstrate that Magical Fairy Godmothery is a real phenomenon in the first place (a) how do you tell the difference, and (b) does the alleged difference really matter?

Firstly, apologies for the gratuitous Monty python quote.

Secondly, Saudi Arabia is planning to execute a woman convicted of being a witch. WTF?

Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of a woman convicted of witchcraft.

In a letter to King Abdullah, the rights group described the trial and conviction of Fawza Falih as a miscarriage of justice.

The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read.

Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent.

So not only does it look like she was fit up, but the crime is witchcraft. Doesn’t anybody else see a problem with that?

Just how do you prove someone is a witch? Warts? Pointy nose? Weighs less than a duck?

The US-based group is asking the Saudi ruler to void Ms Falih’s conviction and to bring charges against the religious police who detained her and are alleged to have mistreated her.

Its letter to King Abdullah says the woman was tried for the undefined crime of witchcraft and that her conviction was on the basis of the written statements of witnesses who said that she had bewitched them.

Ah, good old anecdotal evidence. Nice. It’s a bit like getting sentenced to death because that crazy old man with the cat next door has accused you of being a Smurf. Stupid Gargamel.

Human Rights Watch says the trial failed to meet the safeguards in the Saudi justice system.

The confession which the defendant was forced to fingerprint was not even read out to her, the group says.

So absolute miscarriage of justice. And the crime is witchcraft. (Sorry, I’m having a bit of trouble getting past that one).

Also Ms Falih and her representatives were not allowed to attend most of the hearings.

Sure. Relatively speaking it’s no less insane than putting her in jail for being a witch. She might have made them all impotent like the other guy. Or maybe defend herself or something.

When an appeal court decided she should not be executed, the law courts imposed the death sentence again, arguing that it would be in the public interest.

You can’t see this, but I’m trying very hard to muffle hysterical disbelieving laughter. The law courts reimposed the death sentence, to protect the public from the dangerous illiterate Impotence Witch.

Nice country.

Last week I was startled to discover a targeted email from Amazon offering me “New and Notable Releases in Religion and Spirituality”.

Offering to me.

All I can think is that either:

1. Amazon’s suggestions algorithm is arse backward
2. There is a god and he/she/it/they/whatever is giving me a sign
3. Someone at Amazon saw my purchases of “Letting go of God” and “Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” and thought they’d take the piss.

I mean no one’s crazy enough to read Deepak bloody Chopra. Surely?

Good grief.

George has very kindly posted the fancast that I mentioned earlier on his regular podcast feed.

My part in the production was very small, with that dynamo of niceness, the lovely CarrieP the main creative force behind it all, and a whole lot of content from a bunch of people with more creativity and skill than you could fit in a telephone booth. A big one.

It might not make much sense unless you are a listener of the Geologic Podcast. So if you’re not then then you should ignore this bloody well subscribe and then download the fancast.

You don’t get off the hook that easily.

Last night I caught the Australian premiere of the new Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles pilot, and to be honest I’ve got mixed feelings about it.

When I saw the first episode of Serenity for instance, it had me absolutely enthralled. I mean it was just ridiculous. I just kept watching it over and over. And over.

To be fair Serenity was an entirely new concept, so there was a certain amount of surprise value. You know, like that movie your significant other has been bugging you to see, but you’ve put off because you didn’t think you’d like it, but when you finally do see it you are so pleasantly surprised that you drive everyone insane constantly trying to describe how amazed you were by how good it was. Or maybe that’s just me.

The Pilot of the new Battlestar was the same but different, drawing me in slowly as I rediscovered old characters and the humanity of their interaction. And of course the nerd porn of the new Viper and Battlestar designs didn’t hurt any either.

The Sarah Connor Chronicles (the sooner we shorten it to something like TSCC the better) didn’t have quite the same effect. All of the individual parts were quite cool, but I found the overall effect and tone to be a little confusing.

Like in the films, any sort of human interaction between Sarah and John is completely overwhelmed by her “I’m a jaded killing machine” demeanor and his “I’m so disaffected by my life and the burden of my impending destiny” brooding, and it remains to be seen how such strongly defined chracters will be able to develop over the course of the season. The gun and time machine in the bank vault were pretty cool, but to be honest, the primary draw card for me just now is being able to see more of Summer Glau. But then, that’s no small thing.

In all fairness though, the first episode of Buffy certainly wasn’t indicative of the later plot and character development, and some things that started well have gone seriously downhill as they progressed (*cough * X-Files *cough*), so I guess we’ll just have to see how it goes.

Fingers crossed though, because I really want it to be good.

Hug a monkey, it’s Darwin Day.

It’s really quite alarming sometimes just how misleadingly scientific findings can be reported. Take for example this article on a study by the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University, that allegedly “challenges the notion that ethnic diversity leads to a stronger, more cohesive society”.

Really?

Let’s have a closer look. First the title of the article:

Ethnic diversity drains altruism

Yikes. Altruism is a good thing, and if it drains it, ethnic diversity must be a bad thing! Pray tell me more sir:

MIGRANTS from non-English-speaking countries are less likely to be volunteers than Australian-born people or migrants from English-speaking nations, a study shows.

Ethnically diverse neighbourhoods have lower levels of volunteering even among their Australian-born residents.

Um, okay. But what does volunteering have to do with altruism?

Using levels of volunteering as an indicator of social cohesion, the study shows that suburbs with a high degree of ethnic diversity have markedly lower rates of volunteering than more homogenous localities.

Ah, so the whole study is based on the premise that volunteering is a good indicator of social cohesion. (I suspect that a good argument could be made to the contrary, but that’s not really the point I’m trying to make just now.) So what does social cohesion have to do with altruism?

The author if the study is quoted as saying :

Dr Healy said it would be wrong to conclude migrants from non-English-speaking countries were unfriendly and uncaring and less altruistic than Australian-born people. It was likely their altruism was directed to friends, families and neighbours, not through organised civic, sporting, and welfare organisations. However, altruism directed through formal groups represented a “commitment to the broader social good”.

So the body of the article states that “Dr Healy said it would be wrong to conclude migrants from non-English-speaking countries were unfriendly and uncaring and less altruistic than Australian-born people” and that their “altruism” is directed toward their own cultural group rather than into organised community wide groups. And yet it is titled “Ethnic diversity drains altruism”.

So, I have to ask, is there actually any obligation on the paper for the title of the article to accurately reflect the findings of the study being reported on? Or even just the actual the content of the article it is supposed to be describing?

But then I suppose that “Study suggests that cultural factors occurring in geographically determined areas of ethnic diversity appear to correlate with lower levels of social cohesion as indicated by rates of organized volunteering” doesn’t really have quite the same punch value.

*Yes, yes, I realize that the article states “.. in ethnically diverse areas, both the Australian-born residents and the migrants from non-English speaking countries were less likely to volunteer than their counterparts in the more homogenous neighbourhoods”, but as stated earlier that says absolutely nothing about altruism, just rates of organized volunteering.

It looks like there might be an end in sight to the Writers Guild of America strike. Yay!

I hope the writers got what they wanted, because if we have learned nothing else from this we have learned that in the absence of intelligent (or for that matter bone stupid) writing, TV loses almost all redeeming qualities, other than the incidental provision of light. Hopefully new episodes of Battlestar and Heroes will save us the nerdier amongst us from the increasingly desperate wave of manifestly writer free reality TV.

I might even feel safe enough to turn the volume back on. Eventually.