Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…

Category: Society

  • Children See, Children Do

    An excellent advert from Australia. I’ve often thought that it is too easy for people to become parents.
     
     
  • Not Giving An Inch

    I must admit I’m currently enjoying the current round of interviews that Christopher Hitchins is giving to publicise his latest book: God Is Not Great. He gives no quarter whatsoever in his verbal swordplay.
     
    The latest that I’ve heard is the interview he gave on Simon Mayo’s BBC radio show last Monday. You can still listen to it or download the podcast for another day or two from here (choose the Monday tab). My favourite bit:
    Mayo: Do you think that you would win more converts to atheism if you were less dismissive of religious…
     
    Hitchens: I have no idea, but I can’t be other than dismissive. I hear someone like that sheep-faced loon from Blandford Forum [the Reverend Tim something-or-other… a previous caller] I have to say it sounds like bleating to me, and I remember why you people call yourselves a flock. Yep. Be like a sheep yourself if you must, but please leave me out of it. I’m not a sheep and I don’t need a shepherd and what shepherds do when they’re not actually messing around with their sheep is they’re keeping them around and alive so they can be fleeced and then killed. And yes, hearing these bleatings from the church of England does remind me of that and I don’t feel any need to make converts by not saying what I think. I leave it to them to make their hypocritical, unctuous, pseudo-friendly statements in the hope of keeping people inside the church.  
  • The Last Straw

    Oh gawd, now Jack Straw spouts nonsense over the Rushdie affair. Will this flood of unspeak never end? Ophelia, once again, goes into battle.
  • Language, Language

    The unspeak being used in the reporting of reactions to Rushdie’s knighthood rolls on. It’s like being in a game of Whack-A-Mole. Ophelia is doing her best, but I sense that she is beginning to lose patience. Can’t say I blame her. Here are the latest three examples (I’m linking straight to Ophelia so that you can see the unspeak in the originals being exposed immediately):
     
     
     
    Inayat Bungawala in The Guardian. This latest piece by Bungawala is particularly disingenous. He expects us to fall to our knees in gratitude over the fact that he has renounced book-burning, while carefully skirting the issue of not explicitly renouncing the calls to murder Rushdie. What a piece of work he is.
  • Billboards At The Towers Of Silence

    Mr Eugenides has the details of a sad tale that is developing around the Towers of Silence. Go and read it and marvel at the interconnectedness of life (and advertising).
  • Haven’t You Forgotten Something?

    Today at Bletchley Park, a statue of Alan Turing will apparently be unveiled to commenorate his work done there during World War II. I say apparently, because there is no mention of it on the official Bletchley Park web site, either in the news or the events section.
     
    Yet, it appears that the people who run Bletchley Park have sent out the press release about it to "probably the largest distribution I’ve done for the park, including most consumer magazines where there is a travel (eg days out), arts or culture interest (homes, lifestyle, specialist military, history, maths, computers, womens titles etc). Plus all the broadcast, current affairs & news media" – at least according to Caroline Murdoch who works in the Bletchley Park organisation. 
     
    OK, so news of the statue’s unveiling doesn’t actually seem to have hit Bletchley Park’s own web site.
     
    What I find slightly more than just slapdash, however, is that the press release also doesn’t actually mention that Turing was gay. I would have thought that fact was rather a crucial component of his story. Let Stuart Who, over at Gay.com, take up the story, and the email exchange with Bletchley Park.
     
    Update: Well, it’s a day late, but I see that Bletchley Park has finally got around to mentioning the unveiling of the statue of Alan Turing. They still don’t acknowledge that he was gay, though, and refer coyly to the fact that "he died tragically in 1954 at the age of only 41, having received no public recognition of the colossal contribution he made to the outcome of the war and the computer age that was to follow". Hmm. I think that The Guardian captured a fuller picture in one of its leaders today:
    Turing never benefited from the revolution that he started. In 1952, he was convicted of having a sexual relationship with another man, to which he made no defence other than to say he saw nothing wrong in his actions. The conviction robbed him of his security clearance for GCHQ, for which he still worked, and made him the target for surveillance at the height of the cold war. He died after eating an apple laced with cyanide. The symbol of the half-eaten apple lives on to this day.  
    Update 2: Well, it seems as though the people at Bletchley Park have been stung by the comments such as mine that they were being mealymouthed. The web site now carries a fuller account of why Alan Turing committed suicide. Better late than never.
  • A Blackberry?

    Danah Boyd, over at apophenia, blogs about a press release that has stopped her in her tracks:
    You can now load software in your kids’ BlackBerry and/or cell phone that will be your watchdog (to prevent them from being approached by someone potentially trying to molest them) How it works — the program will send the parents a text message when a foreign IM, text message or e-mail comes into their child’s phone or PDA (anyone not on an approved phone contact list).  
    Like Danah, that phrase "your kids’ BlackBerry" jumped out at me (and not just because whoever wrote this press release doesn’t know where to put an apostrophe). I am clearly totally out of synch with a society in which children have BlackBerries. Mobile phones, I can just about grasp; but a business tool like a BlackBerry? What happened to childhood; who stole it?
     
    And as Danah writes: Surveillance destroys parent-child relationships – technology does not solve relationship issues.
  • Ask The Atheists

    I’ve come across a new (to me) web site that puts the atheist point of view to questions that are asked of it: AskTheAtheists.com.
     
    What a good idea. And when I read stuff like this in answer to the question: Why do atheists not accept that the Bible, the word of God, is proof of His existence?:
    [Quotes from] the very first chapter of the New Testament … actually gives clear evidence of the authors’ human fallibility.
    And for this we’ve had to endure Crusades, Inquisitions and Cliff Richard. Bastards.  
    …I have to think that this is a web site on my wavelegth.
  • A Debate

    Last month, the Future Forum hosted a debate on religion between Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky. The debate was moderated by Evan Smith.
     
    Hitchens is a formidable speaker. Olasky wibbles. I found little of what Olasky said compelling, and much that was ludicrous (e.g. "the overarching cosmic war"), but then that’s me. Watch it for yourself and make your own mind up.
  • Whose Lights Are Out?

    London is having one of these fashionable "Lights Out" events next week. Lights Out London:
    aims to prove that we can all make a difference to the future of our planet. On Thursday June 21 – Midsummer’s Night – we are inviting the whole of London to turn off all lights and non-essential appliances between 9 and 10pm.
    Well, OK… And then what? Well, for instance, the web site suggests:
    Look upwards – the more lights go out he better view we’ll all get of the stars.
    Spot the bats – it will be dusk during the event, exactly when the bats come out to play!  
    And that’s the point when you realise that it’s not just London that will have its lights out – there clearly haven’t been any lights switched on in the brains of the event organisers either. As Diamond Geezer witheringly points out:
    the hyped-up PR gibbons have forgotten one very important fact about next Thursday – the longest day of the year. It won’t actually be dark at 9pm. Brilliant.
    Go and read the rest of his rant, it’s good. As he says:
    Is it just me, or are there more stupid people than usual working for London-based PR projects at the moment? 
    No, DG, it isn’t just you…
  • The Handmaid’s Tale

    Truth is often stranger, and more unsettling, than fiction.
  • The Levers That Power Cults

    A couple of days ago, I mentioned a couple of thought-provoking articles in the current issue of Prospect. The first looking at the background to  the lead bomber of 7/7, and the second that highlighted the views of Mary Douglas on cults.
     
    In the comments to my entry, Coboró mentioned that he had found that the quotation from the article on Mary Douglas fitted the situation of Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church "chillingly".
     
    I have to say that I’m not surprised. The laws that determine whether cults succeed or fail seem fairly straightfoward. What is depressing is how often the victims fail to appreciate this.
     
    But today, I came across another blog posting that I found illuminating. It’s from Sean Prophet, who writes the Black Sun Journal blog. Sean grew up in a cult – his parents founded the Summit Lighthouse.
     
    And why did I find Sean’s posting illuminating? Because it makes the all-too-obvious-point-in-hindsight that cults derive their power not only from their leaders, but also from their persuaded followers. Well, hindsight may be a wonderful thing, but Sean’s point is nonetheless valid for that. And he provides a very useful checklist for identifying cults:
    What do all cults have in common, to varying degrees?
    1. A strong central leader or founder.
    2. Belief that the leader has access to special and exclusive information or has special authority. (In the case of financial cults, it’s the illusion the leader provides of freedom from the laws of economics. The “mark” is vulnerable because of their desire for a quick buck.)
    3. A demand for loyalty oaths and obedience.
    4. High initiation fee or other renunciative action geared toward making withdrawal difficult, such as a requirement to cut off contact from one’s family.
    5. Rings and rising levels of membership, which reward strong commitment.
    6. Intensive, often confrontational–yet uncommonly intimate social relationships.
    7. Reinforcement of in-group and out-group differences. External threats actually benefit the cult by amplifying and solidifying interior control.
    8. Make people feel special, loved, and accepted.
    9. Often attract lonely or confused people who need direction and may have trouble fitting into typical career paths.
    But the most important characteristic of cults, without which they could not exist is:
     
    THEY NEED MEMBERS
     
    Members provide the power. They are the cult’s life blood.
     
    Without members, a cult leader would be just another delusional nutjob or con man. Without followers, the leaders’ loyalty demands or financial claims would sound downright creepy or fraudulent. Their wacky extremist philosophies would be seen in the same category as a homeless person shouting on the street corner. Early members provide the opportunity to hone and polish a more skilled presentation, develop wider legitimacy, and an illusion of popular support to budding sociopaths.
    The first thing a burgeoning cult leader has to do is:
    1. Create a mythology or backstory. In the financial cult, it’s fake case histories and success stories.
    2. Create a mission to give the work a sense of exclusivity and desirability (the way Tom Sawyer got the other boys to paint the fence). Establish an inner circle willing to reinforce their authority (at least until the membership grows).
    3. Acquire the skills to fend off challengers (as soon as members of the inner circle see the power or money start to flow, they will begin vying for it).
    Most people don’t have the skills to manage a relationship with even one other person. We only have to look to the high divorce rate to verify this fact. Imagine what it’s like for a leader to meet daily challenges to his authority (without the normal reward/punishment system of money/loss of job). This is why a cult leader has to get used to saying “because I said so” with a straight face. He has to get used to doling out stern summary justice in the form of ostracism and outright dismissal. He has to learn to use member peer pressure to humiliate and corral troublemakers. It also helps to appeal to supernatural beings and endless divine missions. But it’s not absolutely necessary. The most important skill is an uncommon ability to connect with people (on whatever terms), and to attract and control members.  
    So a strong leader is the catalyst, but as Sean so rightly says: MEMBERS PROVIDE THE POWER. Read the rest of his post. It’s worth it.
     
  • Pot, Kettle, Black

    Oh dear, Theo Hobson has written another column that has me howling in frustration over its wrong-headedness. A Guardian sub-editor has helpfully titled it as "Atheism is pretentious and cowardly". To which the only possible response, dear Theo, is "pot, kettle, black".
     
    And please, can you not redefine the term "atheism"? It simply means "lack of a belief in a god". You might wish to believe that:
    Atheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does. It claims to know what belief in God entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is. And atheism is muddled because it cannot decide on what grounds it ultimately objects to religion. Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged falsity? Or does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged harmfulness? Both, the atheists will doubtless reply: religion is false and therefore it is harmful. But this is to make an assumption about the relationship between rationality and moral progress that does not stand up. Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history – a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion".
    And then you state:
    Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous. The militant atheists have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.
    Well, yes, I do quibble, and I don’t believe that I’m being disingenuous. The conflation of the terms theism, faith and religion is not a helpful contribution to the debate.  
     
    Update: and Ophelia wasn’t impressed, either.
  • Making Bombers

    There’s an excellent article by Shiv Malik in the current issue of Prospect about the process that turned Mohammad Sidique Khan from a youth worker into the leader of the London bombings of 7/7. A must-read that has the ring of truth about it.
     
    The same issue of Prospect also has an article about the anthropologist Mary Douglas, who recently died at the age of 86. The article makes an important point about her research that is highly relevant to Malik’s article:
    Douglas’s theoretical apparatus allowed her to think in original ways about almost any topic. In a lecture earlier this year at the Young Foundation, she discussed "enclaves," the small groups which at their most extreme become terrorist cells. Where others emphasise their strengths, she emphasised their weaknesses: how prone they are to splits and sectarianism, and how hard it is for their founders to enforce rules. To survive, enclaves create around themselves what Douglas called a "wall of virtue"—the sense that they alone uphold justice, while all around them are suspect—yet the very thing that bonds them together encourages individuals within them to compete to demonstrate their own virtue and the failings of their peers. The only thing that can override this fragility is fear of the outside world—and so sects, whether political or religious, peaceful or violent, feed off the hostility of outsiders, using it to reinforce their own solidarity. The implication is clear for western governments: in the long term, defeating terrorism depends on ratcheting fear down, not up, dismantling the "walls of virtue" rather than attacking them head on with declarations of war.
    Unfortunately, there seems to be little likelihood of governments following this sage advice.  
  • Coconut Republics

    Via the TED Blog comes a polemic from economist George Ayittey on "Coconut Republics". Definitely worth a read.
  • Living A Quiet Life

    Unlike Stanley Alpert, I live a quiet life. I don’t think I would want it any other way. I also doubt, given my propensity for sarcasm, whether I would have survived his situation. Scary stuff.
  • The Global Peace Index

    How high does the country where you live score on the Global Peace Index?
  • Diabolical

    I don’t know which is more reprehensible – the fact that Richard Perle believes this shit, or the fact that he wants us to believe it. If there were a Hell, he would be surely destined for it. The fact that there isn’t any such place makes me almost wish that there were.
  • The Fight Goes On

    Today’s news from Moscow is depressing.
  • Taking Liberties

    This documentary, which opens next month, looks as though it could be thought-provoking…
     
     
    More from Rachel here.