A month ago (yes, a whole month), I reviewed chapter three of Ian Wishart's The Divinity Code. Towards the end, I said:Ian declares at the end of the chapter that this is going to be a major theme of his book. There are so many things that "could have" been different, therefore we are so lucky to be here that it is unbelievable that our being here is not the result of sentient intention.
Chapter four, "The Improbability of Earth", continues this theme, so it's worth recapping the three thoughts with which I ended the last review:
1. The assumption that it is intelligible to speak of what "could have happened" in the universe.
2. The assumption that earth life, or even sentient life at all, is special enough to require special explanation.
3. The assumption that there aren't "other universes" which fall victim to exactly the sentient-life-less fate we're told we narrowly avoided, and that this just happens to be one in which sentient life is possible.
Now, both (1) and (3) are more applicable to the preceding chapter than to this one, because while the preceding chapter was about the way the universe happens to be, this chapter is about where in that universe earth happens to be located. The arguments of the chapter can be summed up as follows:
1. Current hypotheses regarding the origin of life on earth are inadequate.
2. A life-producing earth-like planet is so unlikely as to be practically impossible.
3. Scientists believe in God, therefore you should.
There are several assumptions underpinning the arguments in Chapter Four.
The assumption that earth life is the only kind of possible life.
My working definition of "life" is "any self-replicating pattern that has the potential to evolve". In other words, "any self-replicating pattern that can vary from one generation to the next and exists in an environment of scarcity/competition". That category includes earth life, but also includes any such self-replicating patterns of which we have not yet conceived or we have not yet discovered.
Wishart spends a lot of time explaining how earth is inexplicably tailored for the arising of life. To be clearer, he is talking about how earth is inexplicably tailored for the arising of earth life. Put in those terms, it doesn't seem quite so incredible. The reasoning goes like this:
1. Incredibly unlikely things require special explanation.
2. (Unspoken assumption: earth life is the only possible kind of life.)
3. Earth life required exactly earth's conditions in order to arise.
4. Earth conditions are astronomically unlikely to occur exactly like this.
5. Therefore life requires special explanation.
Without the unspoken assumption, the odds of life arising increase by an order of the number of every possible - existent or non-existent - planets with conditions that could give rise to any kind of life (not just earth-like life).
If this is still not clear, consider this analogy:
1. Incredibly unlikely things require special explanation.
2. (Unspoken assumption: Ryan Sproull-like people are the only possible kind of people.)
3. Ryan Sproull required exactly Ryan's Life in order to arise.
4. A person's life conditions are astronomically unlikely to occur exactly like this.
5. Therefore the existence of a person (me) requires special explanation.
Because we're familiar with other kinds of people, the flaw in the argument seems obvious to us. But because we're not familiar with other potential kinds of life (existent or not), the flaw in Wishart's argument is not so immediately apparent.
It may well be that life of any kind is still unlikely enough to fit Wishart's criteria for requiring special explanation. Just because life in general is more likely than earth-like life, that doesn't mean that it is as inevitable as some scientists erroneously believe that earth-like life is. But really, we don't know what these increased odds are, because we don't know all of the possible forms of self-replicating patterns in the universe.
All of Wishart's arguments are based on earth-like life. Many are based on theories of the spontaneous arising of complex life in the form of the simplest cell possible. It may seem like "the simplest cell possible" would be a simple form of life, but really, even a simple cell is incredibly complex. For this reason, molecular biologists have long since abandoned theories of such cells instantly forming, in favour of cells themselves having evolved from simpler processes. No conclusion has yet been reached (see next section).
Wishart refers to a Dawkins argument that addresses the unlikelihood of earth-like conditions arising.[Dawkins] disarmingly concedes the point. Yes, he admits, we appear to live on a unique planet. Yes, the moon is crucial for the existence of life [note the implicit equating of "life" with "earth life"]. Yes, we inhabit the Goldilocks zone.
"Earth's orbit," he agrees, "is so close to circular that it never strays out of the Goldilocks zone."
Faced with all of this, Dawkins tries to convince readers that despite everything having to be "just right", science still has a natural answer.
"The great majority of planets in the universe are not in the Goldilocks zones of their respective stars, and not suitable for life [now Dawkins making the earth-like life assumption]. None of that majority has life. However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it."
Simple, really. Using Dawkins' logic, you can wave all the unlikely preconditions aside, put it down to blind chance, and say, "Well, here we are, then, so it must have happened naturally."
Richard Dawkins' fatal mistake here is the assumption that his very existence and ability to ponder the probability of it all proves in itself a natural first cause.
A subtle misreading of Dawkins' argument lies behind Wishart's responses. To hear Wishart tell it, Dawkins' argument is, "We are here, therefore it happened naturally." That is not what the quoted argument is saying. Instead, it is saying, "If it happened naturally, here we would be. Here we are, so it could have happened naturally." And it is in response to the design argument, "Here we are, so it couldn't have happened naturally."
The Assumption that Not Knowing Means God Did It
We don't currently know for sure how life arose on earth. Without a time machine, we will never know for certain. Hypotheses can be forwarded that fit the observable facts, but by their very nature they are untestable. We cannot observe what happened millions of years ago, and we cannot reproduce conditions that include millions of years of time. There is a gap in our knowledge and there will continue to be so.
So unlike many other objects of enquiry in science, there cannot be conslusive proof of a given abiogenesis hypothesis. This also means that conclusive proof is an impossibly high standard to demand from origin-of-life theories. Any argument that rests on the lack of such inconclusive proof is an argument that rests on an unfalsifiable premise, and so is flawed.
What we have with appealing to God when science has no conclusive explanation is the "God of the gaps". The gaps continue to shrink, as scientific explanation expands, but the gaps are still there, and so the God of the gaps persists. What we have here is a situation where the gap will never completely disappear - it is beyond the ability of science (unless we sort out time travel) to conclusively fill the origin-of-life gap. And so it is a place where the God explanation can sort of surviveo forever if needs be.
Wishart is a big fan of pointing out improbabilities. What are the odds that, with every other phenomenon having a naturalistic explanation, the one that cannot have a conclusively proven naturalistic explanation is the very phenomenon that has only a supernatural explanation? Incalculable, but I'd say they're pretty slim. They're certainly slim enough for me to give naturalistic explanations the benefit of the doubt.
The Assumption that Life is Special
This is the really big one, of course. We can give Wishart's arguments the most possible benefit of the doubt, and yet this assumption remains. We can give his argument the unwarranted assumption that life of any kind is so unlikely as to be practically impossible. We can give his argument the unwarranted assumption "God did it" is an appropriate response to something that demands explanation. But we are still left with the anthropocentric assumption that life demands a special explanation.
To be more clear, the assumption is that life demands a more special explanation than any other phenomenon does. In other words, two hydrogens and an oxygen forms water, splitting uranium atoms releases energy, gravity pulls everything together - all of these could be true and it would just be a boring old universe anyone could imagine floating around. Add life - especially sentient life - and suddenly it becomes a universe that demands an explanation.
There is simply no logical reason for this leap. The formation of a particular kind of crystal may be incredibly unlikely and rare, and occur in this universe, but that does not mean that the universe now requires special explanation, nor does the occurrence of this crystal require special explanation. The same holds true for life. While life may be very important to the living, its importance does not hold outside of its own self-reflection, regardless of the odds of it occurring.
There is no objective standard of importance against which we can judge ourselves to be more important than a quasar, and so there is no means of singling this universe out among the infinite imaginable potential universes against which we compare this one when we say that it is unique, life-bearing and important.
I may write a little more on abiogenesis and potential non-earth-like forms of life later.
This neat little work is called The Geek ABC's, and it's half Gorey-esque alphabet thingee and half geek test. Sadly, I'm familiar with more than half of the geeky little wossnames throughout. (If you haven't read Gorey's Gashlycrumb Tinies, click here.)
Long before V For Vendetta, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or From Hell, classic horror series Swamp Thing was the first of Alan Moore's literary creations to be watered down to slop for the big screen. It was also turned into a kids' TV show in the '80s, with the theme song to the tune of Wild Thing. So those unfamiliar may be unaware of just how awesome Swamp Thing is.
The story starts off fairly simple. Alec Holland is a biochemist who's come up with a kind of super-grow fertiliser to solve the world's hunger problems. Evil industrialists blow him and his research up. He goes running on fire out into the water of the bayou, and Swamp Thing is born. The stories are dark, subtle, pretty complex at times. Swamp Thing is also whence the character John Constantine came, only later spinning off into his own Hellblazer series.
The first issue of Swamp Thing is available from DC Comics, here, for free. If you're inclined to download a bit more than that and are fond of torrents, you might want to download Comical to read the usual formats. Trade-paperback compilations of Swamp Thing are generally available from comic stores or Amazon. And if you're keen for taste of some other good comics you might not have read before, check out this list from Daily Bits.
I suppose if a healthy youngster walked along a street in a bathing suit to allow his or her youthful pores a little more oxygen from the meager amount obtainable in our smog-infested cities, he or she would be arrested. “Here now, none of that trying to keep a healthy body in this city. Go to the beach!” “In which direction, officer? This is Kansas City.” Even bare feet and a rare acquaintance with the earth beneath them would be sufficient to disassociate you from the association of your embarrassed associates. Civilization! Oh, brother! And you, too, sister!
Hmm? Oh, yes. Cary Grant, in the (successful) search for increased mental health, took acid to see what his subconscious held.
Click here for the relevant excerpt from his autobiography.
Say a prayer for Metafilter as you do so.
In 1998, Britain's The Eleven O'Clock Show introduced a new character in the line-up. Ali G was the "voice of da yoof", and his caricaturish portrayal of British "wiggers" was an immediate success. The man behind Ali G, Sascha Baron Cohen, was a young and talented comedian from the socialist-Zionist theatre scene. His skill with creating and portraying characters had already been noted - his "Bruno" character had appeared on the Paramount Comedy Channel earlier the same year, and a precursor to his later "Borat" character had caught the attention of a British producer.
Cohen almost never gives interviews out of character - when in the eye of the media, he is seldom himself, but rather Ali G, Borat, Bruno, or perhaps others. While some may dismiss this as shyness, others might applaud it as a commitment to his craft. Both his characters Ali G and Borat have been very popular in New Zealand, spawning terrible memes that involve people saying things like, "Very nice, I like," then pausing for laughter.
What few people realise is that New Zealand is itself the unwitting possessor of a comedic talent that rivals Cohen in skill and perhaps surpasses him in commitment. Whereas Cohen occasionally steps out of character, such as to get married, New Zealand's comedic artist never breaks character. Her commitment to the role, the art, the pure comedy, is more akin to Christian Bales' character in The Prestige - relentless living of the art for art's sake.
It's not publicly known when the character "Liz Shaw" was first invented, but several leaps of infamy have thrown her into the consciousness of a great many urbanite Kiwis. She began her performance at Auckland University in 2004, parading in bold attire, attracting enough attention to warrant mentions of "that girl who wears short dresses and no underwear" in student magazine Craccum. Her impassioned and in-character replies to her critics became a regular feature in the magazine until 2006, when editor Ryan Sproull - not yet realising her genius - banned the use of her name. (The only exception was BT Boyle's satirical letter listing "The Liz Shawshank Redemption" as a hypothetical pornographic film.)
In 2005, Auckland pornographer, businessman and later mayoral candidate Steve Crow published an advertisement in Craccum for an "A+ model search", which promised one lucky and adventurous lady a prize of $10,000 off her student loan. '05 editors Alec Hutchinson and Stian Overdahl became aware of the true nature of the advertisement too late to prevent it from going to print. The meeting with evangelical Christian student-association president Greg Langton was apparently hilarious.
The advertisement, which was not repeated in the magazine, was actually searching for models for a pornographic movie. Seeing an opportunity to promote the Liz Shaw character, the anonymous artist behind the character immediately put herself forward for the competition. Though she did not win the $10,000 - and I am not certain that anyone did - she was offered a much smaller sum for tasteful nudes in Steve Crow's gentlemen's magazine NZX. She accepted the offer.
After the photo shoot, The Artist Currently Known as Liz Shaw (or "TACKALS") wrote an article for Craccum detailing the experience, in her intentionally awkward English phraseology. She described it as a fairly positive experience - a position she reversed some several weeks later.
Craccum readers, unfamiliar with the subtlety of the humour, wrote letter after letter criticising and insulting the Liz Shaw character. Undaunted by a complete lack of appreciation, TACKALS made her next move: she enrolled the Liz Shaw character in the Young Nats group at Auckland University. While this information was not kept secret, the public still did not realise the extent of the joke being pulled on them.
TVNZ's current-events show 20/20 took a closer look at Steve Crow's competition, and TACKALS managed to get an interview with "Liz Shaw" included on film. The unsuspecting journalists bought the act hook, line and sinker. The footage is available online here.
Even with such a coup under her belt, TACKALS did not rest. Incredibly, nor did she break character. Reports of seeing Liz Shaw on buses began to spread through the Auckland University student populace, her attitude and attire (a studied, consistent "previous-year's Karen Walker") never dropping even for a moment.
TACKALS also entered the realm of New Zealand's blogosphere and cyberspace, first gaining infamy for her Liz Shaw character on the late Craccum Forum and the NZ Games forum, but quickly spreading from there. She was soon known as the "Candyman" of the Internet - speak her name three times and she arrives. This has yet to be confirmed, but one source suggests that she uses Ian Wishart's trick of Google Alerts to inform her of any reference - such as to his book "The Divinity Code". When someone posts anything anywhere about The Divinity Code, Ian Wishart is alerted and comes running, to see what is being said about The Divinity Code. It has to be in that order, too. Not just "Code Divinity The", but "The Divinity Code".
On the Internet, TACKALS found further chances to hone her "Liz Shaw-speak" abuse of the English language, revealing more of her genius. Such a perfect misuse of English comes only through an incredible literacy, akin to a clown's seemingly mistaken juggling, which actually requires years of practice. She was being noticed by major figures in the Kiwi blogosphere, too, with Kiwiblog's DPF calling her "an interesting Young Nat".
The end of 2005 marked a turning point in the art of TACKALS. She experimented with a darker kind of humour, claiming that her experience with Crow's NZX and the subsequent public criticism had caused an eating disorder. Cruder observers, if they were aware of the performance, might believe TACKALS was introducing a kind of offensive humour to liven up the character. A finer understanding of the art of Liz Shaw, however, appreciates the new evolution of the character as borderline Asperger's with a narcissistic disorder, parodying the youth of today.
In making this and other outrageous claims, commonly understood to be "cries for attention", TACKALS brought the Liz Shaw character full circle, eliciting both pity and disgust from an audience suddenly unsure of how to react. While the Liz Shaw character appeared merely ignorant and slightly out of kilter with societal norms, her audience could mock her with social impunity - the same kind of mockery was exacted daily on many others, by chauvinistic men and insecure women. The introduction of psychological and even psychiatric illness to the character threw this state of affairs into disarray. Perhaps the most perfect expression of this new development was Otago's regional TV show Cow TV ringing Ryan Sproull for comment about Liz Shaw. Sproull pleaded over the phone, "Please don't give her any more attention. I really do think she's ill. It's become a matter of ethics."
The next surge in Lizmania was provided by sickening TV show New Zealand Idol. In 1999, an obscure group of New Zealand Satanists attempted to immantise the Christian eschaton by creating a reality-TV show that sought members for a pop group. Popstars created TrueBliss, and the concept was sold first to Australia, then the UK and US. The virus mutated overseas and returned to New Zealand, whose immune system didn't recognise it and was infected again. So New Zealand Idol was born.
A major feature of the show was the initial auditions for short-listing. Realising that the televised auditions were selected for entertainment rather than for quality, TACKALS entered, secure in the knowledge her character, her art, was entertaining as hell - even (especially?) to those who did not realise they were being fooled.
Once again, people bought the Liz Shaw character without question, even after she selected a song with the lyrics "crash and burn" and badly performed it with such precision that she was interrupted and derided by the judges almost immediately. In her most public performance yet, TACKALS emphasised the mental illness of the Liz Shaw character, criticising the judges, including Frankie Stevens' male-pattern baldness. It was a calculated move, and it paid off. "Liz" having signed away the rights to the filming of the audition, South Pacific Pictures on-sold the footage to Telecom, through which it was played again and again on national television in the form of a cellphone ad.
2005 was truly an annus mirabilis for the Liz Shaw chracter. In the words of her website:
NZ Idol changed Liz in many ways and she has decided to pursue her goals of running her own newspaper. in October of this year, Liz started her own newspaper, The Right Word, which is distributed weekly. Unbeknown to the public, Liz had been planning this publication for over a year. Alongside Liz's latest project she continues to study at the University of Auckland and in summer is going to resume her diploma in advertising in order to gain the skills and knowledge required to make her newspaper a success.
Liz also has a part time job. She works for a small market research business, Prime Research in Auckland.
Liz has been a lover of cats all her life and she currently has a black and white kitten named Scratchy whom she adores.
The website, Slinky.net.nz, has sadly since disappeared, but much of the material remains available in the Wayback Machine, here. With this valuable source, the public can examine not only The Right Word - itself a masterpiece in political satire - but also TACKALS' experiments with poetry and song-writing. Here is just one sample:
I used to have a casual sex partner, for over ten months
and we always got sexually satisfied
sometimes I didn't mind but other times I wanted more
it's not about him, well maybe a little
I thought I knew him but I knew OF him for a long time
[chorus] Casual sex, casual sex everyone wants it till they've got it
no commitment and no problems it all seems good till you get it
casual sex casual sex it can do any harm to you
well this is wrong so very very wrong
I was attached to him, he knows this but he wasn't attached to me
I wish he was but he told me that he wasn't and will never be
I did enjoy the sex with him but he was very selfish
and there was no emotional connection, not on his part anyway
What the reader must understand is that while lesser artists, like Sascha Baron Cohen, might invent such events, TACKALS' dedication is such that she would actually engage in sexual practices with young men whom the Liz Shaw character would find personally and politically appealing. To match our Kiwi-made performance artist, Ali G would literally have to find someone named M'Julie and sleep with them.
Exhausted by the events of 2005, TACKALS took a brief sabbatical, directing her creative energies. Her performances were getting more and more blatant, and while they confronted such contemporary issues as mental illness, body image and politics, her art continued to be unappreciated. The situation is reminiscent of the Yes Men and their ever-increasing obviousness in parodying the positions of their victims. What Liz needed, to continue the analogy, was a huge inflatable phallus. She found that phallus in Shortland Street.
Television had worked in the past, and so to television TACKALS returned, this time finding work as an extra on hit New Zealand soap opera Shortland Street. Naturally, she understood that her standing in the public was not yet such that she would be noticed simply by being in the background of a soap-opera scene. Already having established an online presence at the Shortland Street fan site, TACKALS, still playing the Liz Shaw character, leaked essential plot details - ones South Pacific Pictures had invested considerable money in marketing. The uproar was immediate and, for the artist, gratifying.
The use of performance art to highlight contemporary issues in New Zealand society is a recurrent theme in the Liz Shaw project. Previously putting the spotlight on things like the porn industry, the National Party and mental illness, she now turned New Zealand's attention to the wasteful nature of capitalism and the amount of wealth that goes into promoting something as pointless as a soap-opera plot. TACKALS' point was left unmade directly, with mainstream New Zealand media seeing the "finger" and not the "moon" to which it pointed. Newspaper and television media leapt on her previous performances in NZX and NZ Idol, both failing to understand her art and, in a way, making her point for her.
What next for the Liz Shaw project? Well, I intend to interview the artist, though I have no hope that she will break character. Her latest performance in progress is a political blog, entitled Political Passion, where it seems she will be mixing emotional/sexual confession ("passion") with her own brand of studied drooling conservatism. Unable to resist the chance to broadcast the Liz Shaw character via video, she has introduced video-blogging to her repertoire. So far, she has recorded 10 performances, though there are sure to be more soon. They are all available on YouTube here.
Additionally, she has fooled "Don't Vote Labour" founder Andrew Moore, who has placed the Liz Shaw character as a moderator on the site's forum, where she has produced such gems as, "If National are elected then they will also reduce taxes therefore you'll have more money in the pocket. People are worried about health care, but having experienced both public and private, I can say that given the choice I wouldn't use public." Pure genius. She adds given the choice to highlight the fact that only those who can afford private healthcare have a choice in the matter at all. Her performance on the site is chronicled here. It's not yet as impressive as her other work, but no doubt she will work up to something great.
So there you have it. New Zealand's answer to Borat, infamous but not famous, well-known but not well-liked, dismissed but not understood - and yet undaunted. We can only hope that as more people understand the lifelong performance-art project of "the Liz Shaw character", she will find her place amongst our classics: Fred Dagg, the Wizard of Christchurch, and Brendan Horan.
cool BBC World billboards in the US.
The word "should" is ambiguous. Or even polyguous. Here are a few:
1. If you set the kindling properly, the fire should light.
2. You should refrain from punching old ladies in the face.
The first one is a prediction, and the other is a moral imperative. So when I say, "Labour should lose the election," while most people would be making a prediction, I'm actually issuing a moral imperative: do the right thing, Labour, and lose.
Yes, it's pretty likely that Labour will lose this year's election, though there is plenty of time yet for some absurd bullshit to come out. And that's kind of what I'm talking about here. The absurd bullshit. Because at this point, what's going to shift the average voter's vote is either a competition of tax cuts or some stupid scandal where it turns out John Key's boning Gerry Brownlee or something.
And really, neither of those things should have any impact on sensible voters at all. TV3 News authoritatively declared a few weeks ago that Labour would have to promise a $25/week tax cut in order to retain power after the next election. Seriously, this was national 6pm news. "Here is how much each person in New Zealand must be paid by the political party in order to get their votes." As if, you know, that's what democracy is all about - voting for whoever promises you the shiniest balloon and the sweetest lollipop.
And the stupid scandals are just stupid. There will be some this year. And they are stupid.
Throughout the past century, there has been a shift in attitudes towards democracy, from voters being seen as rational individuals who should be exposed to arguments about the best policies for the nation as a whole, to voters being seen as essentially consumers in a market economy of votes, driven by irrational desires rather than rational thought.
This shift has infected what used to pass for left-wing parties in Western countries. We saw it with Clinton and the Democrats, and then Blair and British Labour. Both parties were responding to tactics that had already been introduced by Reagan and Thatcher, appealing to the atomised society of selfish individuals who don't see themselves as part of a community. The emphasis shifted from good policy to good marketing - echoing a shift already effected in the economy, from rational purchasers to subconscious desire-driven consumers.
In New Zealand, the political left is already basically non-existent. The nature of parliamentary politics in the market economy of votes has a feedback effect on the policies of "leftist" parties. Over time, there is an inevitable shift from true left and true right towards the "centre" - which is essentially a compromise between capitalism that accentuates the rewards for those at the top and capitalism that mitigates the effects on those at the bottom. "Left" or "right", New Zealand political parties are capitalist, which makes them essentially right-wing in my book.
There was a conversation between Clinton and one of his advisers, when he started creating policy based on phone polling. "What's the point of being elected if we don't have any real policies?" asked the adviser.
Clinton replied, "What's the point of having policies if we don't get elected?"
At first glance, this sounds like a sensible practical view. In a representative democracy, politics must surely involve some compromise. The problem is, though, that the compromise is no longer a political or economic ideological compromise ("OK, we'll raise taxes, but also offer incentives to start-up small businesses"), but instead are cynical vote-buying strategies akin to the marketing of retail products.
Labour's on the defensive. They're down in the polls thanks to skilful spin and misinformation from National surrounding the repeal of Section 59, the Electoral Finance Bill and tax cuts - misinformation that was picked up and carried by Kiwi media too excited by revenue to tell the (very) plain facts. It is simply the case that when things are going pretty well (well enough for Kiwis to have the education and wealth necessary to move their families overseas if they choose), people stop caring whence good living conditions come and start caring about who's going to give them personally something they want in exchange for their vote.
Unless there is a radical shift in the attitude of the Kiwi populace (unlikely), the only way Labour will win the upcoming election is by focussing even less on good policy and even more on the kind of brand marketing National has spent the last few years perfecting. Even if they win the election, they will lose what remains of their integrity. And the effect on the voting populace will be one that shapes a nation of voters who care more about stupid shit than about rational policy.
So, Labour, boldly lose the next election. Concentrate on coming up with policies you think will work in the long run, campaign on information about those policies, don't continue to stoop to National's level of brand-marketing politics, and let National fuck things up for everyone. It's the only way they'll learn.
(more from the comments)
You supposed that Labour will lose the next election.
I said it certainly looks like Labour will lose the next election, though there's time yet for that to change.
You also supposed that Labour will fight the election with cheap stunts rather than real policies.
I said that campaigning with good policies rather than brand marketing probably wouldn't win it the election, and the chances are that Labour wants enough to win to prefer emulating National's tactics to losing.
You decided that Labour ought to lose the election, so that the public will be taught a lesson about how silly they were to vote National.
That's where I was unclear. What I meant was "it's the only way they'll learn to vote for good policy rather than be swayed by brand marketing". The manner of learning would indeed probably be National fucking a bunch of things up.
I didn't say that Labour should intentionally lose just to demonstrate how bad National is. I said that Labour should campaign on good policies even if that means losing the election.
If the current trends continue, elections will be more and more fought in terms of competing brand marketing rather than good policy, and in the long run that will be increasingly bad for New Zealand as a civic society. Labour could set a good example and try to push the trend back in the direction of policy, but to do so might result in bad things for New Zealand in the short term - a National-led government. But in the long term, I think we will suffer more if politics continue down this path.
Labour should campaign on policy, even if that means losing.
It is weird.
Last year, Japanese scientists worked out how to turn skin cells into stem cells.
That is fucking cool.
More info here. Sadly, we must bit adieu to our dystopian sci-fi fantasies of clones being raised in confinement to provide us with spare livers and such.
Tweebiscuit discovered (two years ago) that Garfield strips become absolutely hilarious when you remove Garfield's thought bubbles. Instead of dialogue, there's just a weird bastard talking to his cat.
Click here to check them out.
I Am A: Neutral Good Human Wizard (3rd Level)
Ability Scores:
Strength-11
Dexterity-15
Constitution-12
Intelligence-17
Wisdom-13
Charisma-16
Alignment:
Neutral Good A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because because it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.
Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.
Class:
Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is her spells, everything else is secondary. She learns new spells as she experiments and grows in experience, and she can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate her spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar- a small, magical, animal companion that serves her. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells.
Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)
I learned a huge amount of stuff as a kid playing role-playing games. Okay, I still do play RPGs. I meet with a few friends to play D&D (which I never actually played as a kid) every few weeks. Resource books about different historical periods were probably the main source of info - Arthurian legend, medieval Europe, Lovecraft, etc.
Anyway, here's a neat resource, that would probably be pretty sweet for anyone wanting to write fiction set in the decade. Dirty '30s has lots of sweet info about the Mafia, Nazis, Commies, gumshoes, jazz, and all that other cool shit from the over-romanticised Depression times. Yay, art deco, etc. Fun times. Kind of.
Chapter Three: The Moment of Creation
Haha, okay, now things finally get a bit interesting.
Ian points out the similarities of the creation myths, which seems to be basically that they all involve creation. Those that don't - such as the Indian notion of an infinite past - are dismissed as "the much simpler view". Ian does not explain how "stuff was always here" is simpler than "a big invisible man made stuff from scratch".
Here's the passage that cracks me up:
Davies argues that God did not cause the Big Bang, because causing, by definition, can only happen within a time-bound realm, not a timeless one. Davies overlooks the transcendence of God, however - virtually all religions argue that a Deity capable of creating the universe is just as capable [of] plunging his hand into it from the outside to stir the mix. I digress, however.
"I digress, however," is code for, "Let's not think too much about that part, OK? Cos I'm talking out my arse."
What Ian is imagining here is a God who sits outside of time and "plunges his hand in" - makes changes - within the time-bound universe. These words are strung together into grammatically correct sentences, but aren't saying anything at all. To plunge, to act, to change, to cause, to do anything at all... this is an event. To speak of action outside of the context of time is like speaking of shape outside of the context of space. It is simply meaningless babble to say "action outside of time", because everything we have ever known and meant by "action" is saturated by notions of time. There is a before-acting, a during-acting and an after-acting. Without any of those things, the very notion of making a change or causing anything at all is absurd and meaningless. Not just "so difficult that only an omnipotent being could do it". Just meaningless.
And this is apparently made meaningful and sensical by the addition of the adjective "transcendent" to the name God. It doesn't matter what you call God, the statement "action outside of time" means nothing.
So here's the next bit. Davies suggests that the universe could have come into being via a "quantum event". The quoted Guardian piece continues:
The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible. Therefore, the origin of time (coincident with that of space, matter and energy) eliminates quantum tunneling as 'creator'.
And suddenly Ian takes up the "events outside of time make no sense" standard! "In simple language," he writes, "there's still no natural explanation for the Big Bang." Apparently it's fine for God to act outside of time, but it's absurd to talk of quantum events occurring outside of time. Of course, it is absurd to talk of quantum events occurring outside of time, but no more absurd than to talk of anything occurring outside of time.
Forgetting the origin of the universe in general, there are problems with the origins of the physical laws of the universe. Where did they come from? Davies writes:
The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its lawlike order. Dumping the problem in the lap of a pre-existing designer is no explanation at all, as it merely begs the question of who designed the designer. But appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better.
From which Ian derives, "[Davies] rejects Intelligent Design because, well, it implies a Designer." Which is not at all what he said. Davies did not dismiss a designer, at least in terms of his quoted statements, simply because he has an emotional aversion to the idea of one. His complaint was that any attempt to find a cause of the laws of the universe in something beyond the universe, be it designer or extra-universal laws, merely brings one back to the same question: where did that design come from?
While Ian's answer to this question is not explicit, it seems clear that the usual theistic explanation of "God breaks the rules" comes into play. Other things need reasons for making sense; God is the exception.
The choice of Paul Davies as a representative of Big Bang theorists is interesting, as Paul Davies is basically a theist himself. What seems to convince Davies (and Ian) that the universe is designed is the apparent harmony of physical laws, when so many things "could have" been different, and thus not given rise to life on earth.
Ian declares at the end of the chapter that this is going to be a major theme of his book. There are so many things that "could have" been different, therefore we are so lucky to be here that it is unbelievable that our being here is not the result of sentient intention.
At first glance, it's a compelling argument. It makes a few assumptions, though, that aren't immediately obvious.
1. The assumption that it is intelligible to speak of what "could have happened" in the universe - that things like "if gravity was just a bit stronger, life wouldn't be possible" are meaningful statements. Against what other universes are we comparing this one?
2. The assumption that earth life, or even sentient life at all, is special enough to require special explanation. As phenomena go, we find ourselves pretty interesting, but if talk of "what if the universe was different" is meaningful, what makes sentience any more amazing than a total dispersal of all energy and matter? We happen to be the kind of phenomena that can reflect on our situation and think, "Fucking hell, that was lucky!" But just because phenomena in some hypothetical other universe lacks such self-reflective ability doesn't mean that it's any less "lucky" in the same sense.
3. The assumption that there aren't "other universes" which fall victim to exactly the sentient-life-less fate we're told we narrowly avoided, and that this just happens to be one in which sentient life is possible. I put "other universes" in scare quotes, because if "other universes" exist in any way that is relevant or real, then they are really part of what I call "the universe" - which is everything that exists.
Anyway. I'll save further rants about the anthropic principle to later chapters, as I assume that's the direction in which Ian will be taking us.
Chapter Two: In the Beginning
This chapter is dedicated to debunking an idea that is apparently common among some of the people Ian doesn't like, such as Karen Armstrong. The idea they espouse is that there was an "Axial age" - a time in history when disparate cultures made similar leaps in their thought. In India, Vedanta was showing up, as did Gautama (the Buddha). Plato was doing his thing. Isaiah was doing his for the Hebrews. Taoism in China, etc. Basically, it's considered a pivotal (axial!) time in the development of these cultures.
Ian's concern is that some of these thinkers believe that there is an evolution of theism, from animism to polytheism to monotheism (to atheism, apparently), which therefore lends some kind of historical superiority to atheism in the minds of these thinkers. Comparing atheism to monotheism is like comparing Einstein to Newton - "we know better now". Ian will have none of that.
In order to debunk the evolution-of-religion idea, Ian cites various creation myths from around the world, and shows that similarities and differences don't follow any kind of evolutionary progression. Monotheism and creation ex nihilo was a very old idea, rather than a later stage of natural religious development, as his targets assert.
Recent Middle Eastern archaeological discoveries suggest that analogies to the Genesis creation stories existed long before the penning of Genesis, in a city called Ebla. Tablets recovered relatively recently from Ebla make references to names that are potentially Hebraic biblical names, like Adam and Eve, and Sodom.
While I don't find myself as blown away as Ian apparently does by the idea that two Middle Eastern cultures shared similar creation myths (when Adam and Eve are referenced in 2500-year-old Chinese writings, I'll be impressed), I think he adequately messes with the theory that monotheism is only ever a development out of polytheism, rather than a potentially older idea.
Though, really, it's a long-winded way to go about things. If the concern is that Some People Say that atheism is the most advanced step of evolution of a natural religious progression, then one need look no further than the confirmed atheists of ancient India. I've never been much of a fan of the essentially Hegelian idea of a natural progression of ideas. It has the worrying tendency to imbue recent thinkers with an exaggerated sense of their own importance, as evidenced in just about every German philosopher ever. They all seem to think that no one has got it right in history until them, and they're the culmination of human wisdom. Hegel finished writing The Phenomenology of the Spirit and thought, "There, I'm the end of history." Kant called his Critique "a Copernican revolution" in thought and went on to write The Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysic, which could have been titled "all you motherfuckers gotta take me into account". He was right, but come on, fella. Chill out. And then there was Nietzsche. He thought he was so right that people wouldn't even understand how right he was for another few centuries.
Of course, no one actually got it right until me. Syntheism all the way, baby.
Anyway. People just think stuff. Ian does a good job here of presenting counter-examples to the evolving-religion hypothesis he finds in Armstrong. That doesn't greatly concern me, because my views aren't embodied by the people with whom he is concerned. I do find that with Ian, though. He tends to think that citing people he considers "liberals" gives him some kind of added weight when debating people he considers "liberals". Kind of a "you don't like Hawaiian pizza? WELL, LIBERAL HISTORIAN HOWARD ZINN LOVES PIZZA" thing.
Anyway, interesting chapter. Moving on.
Well, in addition to receiving a few requests for me to start posting again, Ian Wishart's new book, The Divinity Code, quotes me extensively. Seeing as I pointed put that whole Marx not-quite-quote debacle in Eve's Bite, I should have a look at Code and let you know what I think.
Firstly, if anyone's interested, Ian Wishart did not quote me out of context in chapter 17, and he references the full conversation in a footnote. I am not unhappy with how I was portrayed. Ian did not "pull a Marx" on me. And so he shouldn't, but for some reason I feel grateful.
Chapter One: The Quest for Fire
This chapter can be summed up as follows.
1. What do we know? Maybe there was an Atlantis. Oooh! Therefore, no one knows what they're talking about. Therefore, Dawkins and Geering and others don't know what they're talking about. Keep reading! Cos Ian knows what he's talking about.
2. Lots of people believe in God. Not just stupid Americans. New Zealanders do too! And fewer people believe in ghosts and reincarnation and astrology, which are apparently New Age, despite all being pretty goddam old. So lots of people believe in the supernatural. YOU JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. Also, Fox News!
3. Some people say we evolved to believe in God. Ha! How did single-celled organisms know that believing in God would be useful? They couldn't, therefore theism cannot be an evolved trait.
Ian's pulled out this bizarre primary-school misunderstanding of evolution before, and I'm quite certain he understands it better than that. But I'll clarify. Evolutionary theory does not suggest that traits are intentionally evolved. That is, if anything, Lamarckism, or perhaps a New Agey kind of guided-evolution thing. Traits arise randomly, and if they are useful or not an impediment, they survive. The simple rule of evolution is this: What tends to survive, tends to survive.
There are ideas that the tendency for theism is an evolved trait. They tend to go along the lines of assignment of agency to unexplained phenomena. If animals evolve a trait to assume the rustling in the trees behind them is caused by a conscious agent rather than the environment, they are at an advantage. If it is a predator, they are better off running. If it is prey, they are better off hunting. If it is neither, and is simply the wind, they don't lose much by looking a bit silly assuming agency. Darwin actually cited an example of this - his dog barking at something blowing in the wind.
So it's possible that the assumption of agency is an evolved trait. That would go some way to explaining the widespread belief in the supernatural with regards to natural phenomena. Animism, believing in spirits for each tree and river, is an example. Lightning as thrown by a god, etc. But really, such beliefs can be explained by sociological and psychological theories no less believable than a genetic-tendency theory.
In fact, the idea that we have a genetic tendency to assume agency doesn't really deserve the title "theory", because it's just an idea. It's not as ridiculous as Ian makes it out to be, but it's not the cornerstone of many people's attitude towards theism either. It's certainly the kind of thing that would be evolutionarily advantageous, and nothing in the behaviour of animals or humans contradicts the hypothesis, but it's not a testable theory, unless some odd fellow went about trying to isolate a gene responsible for it, which would be an absurdly difficult and basically pointless venture.
It's worth noting that "an evolved tendency to assume agency when faced with unexplained phenomena" is a bit more of a complex idea than "the idea that evolution created the idea of God in our heads", which is the way Ian phrased it. It's a little like describing gravity as "the idea that chunks of stuff are in love with each other, but like each other less when they're further away". It's easy to dismiss ideas out of hand when you frame them in ways that make even a cursory analysis seem like a waste of time.
But then, that's just the introductory chapter, and frankly, it's already much better than Eve's Bite, which was more of a paranoid diatribe about Capitalised Nouns that are out to get you because everyone's out to get Christians, which just goes to show how right they are. Eve's Bite dealt with values, however misrepresented and caricatured, and that makes it a tricky topic to cover without resorting to, "What are you, insane?" The Divinity Code deals with actual concrete arguments, and that is refreshing as all hell. Gives a fellow some traction.
Anyway, next, chapter two.
From Graham Walker, Director of Management of the World RPS Society, how to win at Rock, Paper, Scissors. But before you read this, check out The Ultimate Rock, Paper, Scissors Chart. Personally, I'm confident that wolf outruns lightning.
1 - Rock is for Rookies
In RPS circles a common mantra is “Rock is for Rookies” because males have a tendency to lead with Rock on their opening throw. It has a lot to do with idea that Rock is perceived as “strong” and forceful”, so guys tend to fall back on it. Use this knowledge to take an easy first win by playing Paper. This tactic is best done in pedestrian matches against someone who doesn’t play that much and generally won’t work in tournament play.
2 - Scissors on First
The second step in the ‘Rock is for Rookies’ line of thinking is to play scissors as your opening move against a more experienced player. Since you know they won’t come out with rock (since it is too obvious), scissors is your obvious safe move to win against paper or stalemate to itself.
3 - The Double Run
When playing with someone who is not experienced at the RPS, look out for double runs or in other words, the same throw twice. When this happens you can safely eliminate that throw and guarantee yourself at worst a stalemate in the next game. So, when you see a two-Scissor run, you know their next move will be Rock or Paper, so Paper is your best move. Why does this work? People hate being predictable and the perceived hallmark of predictability is to come out with the same throw three times in row.
4 - Telegraph Your Throw
Tell your opponent what you are going to throw and then actually throw what you said. Why? As long as you are not playing someone who actually thinks you are bold enough to telegraph your throw and then actually deliver it, you can eliminate the throw that beats the throw you are telegraphing. So, if you announce rock, your opponent won’t play paper which means coming out with that scissors will give you at worst a stalemate and at best the win.
5 - Step Ahead Thinking
Don’t know what to do for your next throw? Try playing the throw that would have lost to your opponents last throw? Sounds weird but it works more often than not, why? Inexperienced (or flustered) players will often subconsciously deliver the throw that beat their last one. Therefore, if your opponent played paper, they will very often play Scissors, so you go Rock. This is a good tactic in a stalemate situation or when your opponent lost their last game. It is not as successful after a player has won the last game as they are generally in a more confident state of mind which causes them to be more active in choosing their next throw.
6 - Suggest A Throw
When playing against someone who asks you to remind them about the rules, take the opportunity to subtly “suggest a throw” as you explain to them by physically showing them the throw you want them to play. ie “Paper beats Rock, Rock beats scissors (show scissors), Scissors (show scissors again) beats paper.” Believe it or not, when people are not paying attention their subconscious mind will often accept your “suggestion”. A very similar technique is used by magicians to get someone to take a specific card from the deck.
7 - When All Else Fails Go With Paper
Haven’t a clue what to throw next? Then go with Paper. Why? Statistically, in competition play, it has been observed that scissors is thrown the least often. Specifically, it gets delivered 29.6% of the time, so it slightly under-indexes against the expected average of 33.33% by 3.73%. Obviously, knowing this only gives you a slight advantage, but in a situation where you just don’t know what to do, even a slight edge is better than none at all.
8 - The Rounder’s Ploy
This technique falls into more of a ‘cheating’ category, but if you have no honour and can live with yourself the next day, you can use it to get an edge. The way it works is when you suggest a game with someone, make no mention of the number of rounds you are going to play. Play the first match and if you win, take it is as a win. If you lose, without missing a beat start playing the ‘next’ round on the assumption that it was a best 2 out of 3. No doubt you will hear protests from your opponent but stay firm and remind them that ‘no one plays best of one for a kind of decision that you two are making’. No this devious technique won’t guarantee you the win, but it will give you a chance to battle back to even and start again.
I've explained before that free will is superstitious nonsense. The reasons for a person's actions are determined by factors outside of their control - this is a logical necessity. And so the rational way to treat crime is as a sickness with causes, rather than a sin of volition.
Put me in charge of parking fines in Auckland City, and I can make a statistically significant number of drivers pay for parking - by doubling the fines. Nothing else will have changed, except for me upping the fines, and that will change their behaviour. External factors.
It's fairly well known that the book Freakonomics claimed that crime rates in the US markedly dropped as a result of legalised abortions. 20 years later, there was a generation of unwanted 20-year-olds born to impoverished young single mothers who didn't exist to join gangs and smoke the marijuana like a cigarette. Crime, which had been a growing concern in the US, plummeted.
The Independent is now reporting that crime has dropped due to leaded petrol being banned. Lead had been associated with minor brain damage in children exposed to it - potentially resulting in higher rates of criminal behaviour as adults. The UK was one of the last developed countries to ban lead in petrol, and it's the last to see a significant drop in crime.
To be concerned more with the long-term causes of crime than the immediate prevention and punishment of criminals in the short term is typically a left-wing political perspective. Right-wing politics are often identified with harsher sentencing and more police powers - whether due to the ideology of the politicians or the simple practicality of an easily grabbed senior-citizen vote.
Unfortunately, people have very short memories, and policies that have long-term reductive effects on crime are seldom appreciated in the form of popular political support. In other words, if you're asked what you're going to do about crime, and you say you'll remove its causes 20 years from now and the other guy says he'll make "life mean life", you'll lose, and 20 years later, crime won't have dropped off.
No more wall candy, people.
Sensing Murder is a presumably popular television show here in New Zealand. That means that people watch it, so advertisers pay TVNZ, so TVNZ pays the production company, so the production company pays its employees and the 'psychics' featured. The idea is fairly simple - take an unsolved murder, list the known evidence, bring in psychics to tell us the known evidence again, and then make a few suggestions as to what might have happened.
Now, the show does serve one good function - one mentioned recently on Shortland Street (come on, you all watch it). By bringing the public's attention to these unsolved murders, it's possible to jog viewers' memories and they might contact the police with useful information. The fact that the same function can be fulfilled without encouraging ignorance and stupidity - such as with The Investigator - removes this justification.
The show claims that, having tested almost 200 psychics with a little-known solved murder case, a select few are found to participate. We are then assured that the psychics are told nothing of the unsolved case, don't know what they're working on till they arrive at the production office, aren't given any cues by the crew, and that therefore their melodramatic conversations with dead victims are real.
As my good friend James says, "He either walked up the stairs or teleported to the top of the building, and he didn't walk up the stairs." Which is more likely? That the creators of the show are lying to you, or that these people are actually communicating with dead people.
The victims' families are often understandably eager to believe, with many tears and such. Whether such false hopes are further victimisation or compassionate white lies, I'm not decided.
Knowing how many sceptics there are out there, one recent episode included self-promoting author Nigel Latta, claiming to be a sceptic himself, then being totally amazed by how totally real the show that's paying him to appear on television is.
Alan Charman of Immortality.co.nz has made a very compassionate offer to the show and its four featured psychics. The Immortality Challenge makes a small demand for a big payout. All any of the psychics must do is exactly what they do on the show, except under controlled conditions: prove they are communicating with dead people. Once they've done so, they will receive far more than Sensing Murder pays them - $1,000,000 for themselves and $1,000,000 for their chosen charity. The offer to the Sensing Murder psychics is being discussed on racechat.co.nz.Me: Hi, Alan speaking.
DB: Who am I talking to?
Me: Alan
DB; Hi, it's David Baldock here from Ninox Television, you just rang me.
Me: It's Alan Charman from the two million dollar paranormal challenge.
DB: [sounding distinctly less happy than 3 seconds previously] Ah. Good morning.
Me: [keeping it friendly] You don't sound all that pleased to hear from me?
DB: [poise quickly recovered] Quite happy to talk, but I'm rushing off to a meeting. Can I call you back in an hour?
Me: [not asking why the hell you'd ring someone if you couldn't talk to them] No problem, look forward to hearing from you.
This television show is making people stupider, but unlike productions from, say, Touchdown, they are making people stupider in a way that could be easily removed with a little honest experiment - like the Immortality Challenge. It's much harder to prove that Mitre 10 Dream Home is a scam.
Sensing Murder can be contacted through their website, or by phoning Ninox Films Ltd in Wellington, if you feel like asking them why they're not giving $1,000,000 to child cancer or something.
Here's an interesting point about Bin Laden's Latest Release. According to this site, all of the references to current events (the usual way to prove that a recording is current) take place during points where the video freezes. Check it out at the Booman Tribune, including enormous downloadable video file.
The joint suicide of André Gorz, the French philosopher and founder of the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, and his British-born wife Dorine, who was suffering from a fatal disease, has turned the love letter that he wrote to her into a surprise bestseller.
Gorz, 84, a friend of Jean-Paul Sartre, and Dorine, 83, committed suicide by lethal injection at their home in the village of Vosnon, east of Paris, on September 22. Two days later a friend found them lying side-by-side in their bedroom.
Gorz’s 75-page Lettre à D. Histoire d’un Amour (Letter to D. Story of a Love), published a year earlier, was a tribute to his wife. One French critic described the work, which won him a wider audience than his essays on ecology and anti-capitalism, as his “intellectual and emotional testament”.
The couple met by chance at a card game in 1947 and married in 1949. “You will soon be 82. You have shrunk six centimetres and you weigh just 45 kilos and you are still beautiful, gracious and desirable,” the book starts. “It is now 58 years that we have lived together and I love you more than ever.”
Click here for the rest of the article.
Dear Mr. Shirriff,
I have recently been made aware of several websites that focus on The Anarchist Cookbook. As the author of the original publication some 30 plus years ago, it is appropriate for me to comment. I would appreciate it if you would post these comments as part of your website on the Anarchist Cookbook. Please do not include my e-mail address. However, should you wish to confirm the authenticity of this message, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address.
The Anarchist Cookbook was written during 1968 and part of 1969 soon after I graduated from high school. At the time, I was 19 years old and the Vietnam War and the so-called "counter culture movement" were at their height. I was involved in the anti-war movement and attended numerous peace rallies and demonstrations. The book, in many respects, was a misguided product of my adolescent anger at the prospect of being drafted and sent to Vietnam to fight in a war that I did not believe in.
I conducted the research for the manuscript on my own, primarily at the New York City Public Library. Most of the contents were gleaned from Military and Special Forces Manuals. I was not member of any radical group of either a left or right wing persuasion.
I submitted the manuscript directly to a number of publishers without the help or advice of an agent. Ultimately, it was accepted by Lyle Stuart Inc. and was published verbatim - without editing - in early 1970. Contrary to what is the normal custom, the copyright for the book was taken out in the name of the publisher rather than the author. I did not appreciate the significance of this at the time and would only come to understand it some years later when I requested that the book be taken out of print.
The central idea to the book was that violence is an acceptable means to bring about political change. I no longer agree with this.
Apparently in recent years, The Anarchist Cookbook has seen a number of ‘copy cat’ type publications, some with remarkably similar titles (Anarchist Cookbook II, III etc). I am not familiar with these publications and cannot comment upon them. I can say that the original Anarchist Cookbook has not been revised or updated in any way by me since it was first published.
During the years that followed its publication, I went to university, married, became a father and a teacher of adolescents. These developments had a profound moral and spiritual effect on me. I found that I no longer agreed with what I had written earlier and I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the ideas that I had put my name to. In 1976 I became a confirmed Anglican Christian and shortly thereafter I wrote to Lyle Stuart Inc. explaining that I no longer held the views that were expressed in the book and requested that The Anarchist Cookbook be taken out of print. The response from the publisher was that the copyright was in his name and therefore such a decision was his to make - not the author’s. In the early 1980’s, the rights for the book were sold to another publisher. I have had no contact with that publisher (other than to request that the book be taken out of print) and I receive no royalties.
Unfortunately, the book continues to be in print and with the advent of the Internet several websites dealing with it have emerged. I want to state categorically that I am not in agreement with the contents of The Anarchist Cookbook and I would be very pleased (and relieved) to see its publication discontinued. I consider it to be a misguided and potentially dangerous publication which should be taken out of print.
William Powell
(source)
Apologies for the absence. I haven't had much to say, and I've been a little busy with various projects. They're coming along nicely, thanks for the concern.
Anyway. Yesterday, in a nationwide sweep, various abodes were raided and various people arrested, in what has been billed a response to burgeoning domestic terrorism. Students at Auckland University were treated to drive-bys of LAVs of armed soldiers pointing guns. We're told that guerrilla training camps were raided in the Bay of Plenty. An anonymous source was certain to use the word "napalm", just to press home the urgency of the matter.
I tend to reserve judgement on things until more of the full story has come out, but in this case, I know one of the people arrested. I won't mention his or her name, because I am assuming they have name suppression. I strongly doubt this person posed any kind of threat that would warrant the use of the term "terrorism", and I have never known them to be violent or to condone violence. The person is a passionate political activist, to be sure, and is motivated by a fairly clear concern for the welfare of others.
First, a quick look at the associations being made here. "Training camps", "terrorism", "Maori sovereignty", "environmentalist groups", "youth-rights activists" and "Palestinian rights activists" were all mentioned within seconds of each other by the 6pm news.
That's a pretty broad range of folks. The impression such reporting will make on the general populace is an association of climate-change protesters, Palestinian-rights protesters, youth-rights protesters with gun-toting nutters training an army in the heart of Maoristan. This further pushes the divide between mainstream public opinion and political activists - a divide that has recently been narrowing with regards to climate change, at least.
The impression I get so far is people who are of actual serious concern being swept up with people who are of little concern. For what reason, I don't know, but I could hazard a guess. It's always helpful to have a precedent in your back pocket.
The second effect is the question of how exactly these associations and connections were made. My friend - we shall call him/her Kelly - is unlikely to have visited any East Coast training camps, and I would be surprised if Kelly had any direct communication with those involved in the camps. So whence came the information that led to Kelly's arrest?
Before charges can be laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act, justification must be admitted by the Attorney General. That hasn't been done yet, though police will be putting together a case for it. However, the Terrorism Suppression Act was no doubt accompanied by increased police powers for the purposes of surveillance and tracking.
The reason I note this as an effect is because yesterday afternoon, I received a phone call from a prominent local activist, asking if I would come along and participate in a protest against the arrests. I chose not to, but my first thought after hanging up was, "Well, my phone number's on that network now, if it wasn't already."
If I remember correctly, phone calls - and presumably text messages - are the property of a particular government role during transit. Traditionally, this was the Postmaster General, but I'm not sure how it is now. It stands to reason that the first thing any investigation of organised crime will want to be able to do is track networks of cellphone communication. If the (very good) American TV show The Wire is well researched, and I assume it is, police in the States have the power - after convincing a judge that no further investigation is possible without it - to record numbers dialed and texted from specific phones, and to tap phone calls.
With the assumption that Kiwi police doing anti-terrorism work have similar powers, my attitude towards my cellphone has changed. Yesterday, shortly after my activist friend calling me, I received a text from my sister. I wondered if that puts her on an alert network. In the US, under the US PATRIOT Act, such a flimsy connection could potentially give the federal government the power to cease her assets. It's unlikely they would, but it would be within their legal power. What are the limits of such legal power in New Zealand?
Take a look at the definition of terrorism under the TSA. Terrorism is defined as attempting to induce terror or compel a government to act or abstain by acting, through the following threats, intentions or deeds:a. ...the death of, or other serious bodily injury to, 1 or more persons
(other than a person carrying out the act)
b. a serious risk to the health or safety of a population
c. destruction of, or serious damage to, property of great value or importance, or major economic loss, or major environmental damage, if likely to result in 1 or more outcomes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (d)
d. serious interference with, or serious disruption to, an infrastructure facility, if likely to endanger human life:
e. introduction or release of a disease-bearing organism, if likely to devastate the national economy of a country.
The police website gives an abbreviated version:Is intended to cause the death of, or serious bodily injury to, one or more persons; and
Is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause; and
Is intended to either:
Induce terror in a civilian population; or
Unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act; and
Is not an act that occurs in a situation of armed conflict and which is, at the time and in the place that it occurs, in accordance with rules of international law applicable to the conflict
The police site doesn't mention the threat of major economic damage.
While the idea is that this definition of terrorism leaves untouched those forms of political activism we call valid - protesting, writing letters, etc. - it occurs to me that some of the more historically effective tools for compelling a government to act one way or another are in a bit of a grey area. If my arrested friend was advocating a general strike, for example, that could be construed as threatening major economic damage with a threat to human life (if certain professions were included in the strike).
Anyway, the fear is now there, to some extent. I'd like to shrug it off as paranoia - as irrational paranoia, I should say - but the breadth of these arrests and raids seems at first glance to stretch the definition of terrorism to breaking point. Whether or not the intention was to send a message, "Don't step too far out of line," that is the message many political activists are hearing. Even if the majority of those arrested are released without being charged, the effect remains: "Yes, we're even watching you, and look what we can do."
Mattel is stockpiling the vibrating broomsticks in case
of an outbreak of mass hysteria among teenage girls.
I've been doing some things, and one of the things I've been doing is reading a book that was lent to me for a browse. It's called Eve's Bite, by Christian and former journalist Ian Wishart.
It's pretty funny. According to the introduction, the gist is this: the West is at war with (Nazis) Islamofascism, which is (Nazis) going to win, because (Nazis) political correctness and Marxist (Nazis) ideologies have made us weak. This weakness is exemplified by the Labour Party (Nazis).
Eve's Bite is subtitled, "Seductive, Deceptive & Dangerous: the Trojan ideologies poisoning our country and destroying the West." I have a better subtitle: "Why critical thinking should be taught in high schools."
I do the following for two reasons. One, it's entertaining. Two, I'm bored..Chapter One: School Daze
This chapter begins a Goebbels quote about propaganda and education. Wishart is concerned about education in the West. He begins with a few statistics - how many students didn't know much about D-Day or the Holocaust, thought that Private Ryan led the charge at Normandy, etc. A survey of British adults found that one in 20 believe Conan the Barbarian to be a real figure from Nordic history.
In parentheses, he points out that this is roughly how many New Zealanders voted for the Greens in the last election. Now, I'm a big fan of Vonnegut, and at the start of Breakfast of Champions, he prepares the reader for the level of sophistication he will be using throughout the book. "This," he says, "is my drawing of an asshole."
I like to think of this parenthetical comparison of Greens voters with Conan-believing Britons as preparing the reader for the level of sophistication Wishart will be using throughout Eve's Bite. Perhaps he's hoping the reader will think of the Greens when they think about studies about how silly some people are. Perhaps you'll think of Vonnegut's asshole when you think of Ian Wishart. Who knows?
To explain how education has reached the depths of contemporary New Zealand, Wishart explains the three main historical forces at work in shaping the modern Western world: Darwinism, Marxism and eugenics.
The Wishartian Marx was a man on a mission: to destroy Christianity. He quotes Marx.When Engels and I first joined the secret Communist Society we made it a condition that everything tending to encourage superstitious belief in authority was to be removed from the statutes. Law, morality, religion are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality.
Goodness! And from Wikiquote. Let's look at where these quotes actually come from. Yes, that's right, quotes - plural. The first sentence is from a letter Marx wrote to Wilhelm Blos, recommending avoiding personality cults in socialist movements. The second sentence is from the Communist Manifesto, describing the condition of the proletarian under capitalism.
And the third quote. This is my favourite part. "Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality." Good God! How terrifying! Why would Marx say something like this? Unless... Yes, here is the full quote:“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
Yes, that's right. Wishart quoted Marx musing on what opponents of Marxism might mistakenly say about Communism. It was not Marx saying that Communism abolishes all morality, but Marx's hypothetical critics and name-callers.
Classic.
But so important! Wishart follows up the misquote with, "Let that message sink in, for a moment." Wow.
Blah, blah, blah. Marx hated Christianity. Blah, blah, blah. Here's another good one. "'Democracy is the road to socialism... The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.' Funnily enough, Islam has a similar definition of peace."
I think I'm just going to throw in that picture whenever these hilarious little associations are made. Marxism... equals... Islamic terrorism...
Then Darwin comes in. Wishart's right in associating the two, though not really in the way he means. Darwin sought a materialist explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on earth. Marx was applying Hegel's teleology to a material economic context, rather than Hegel's spiritual one. So they were both materialists.
Now, keep in mind what Marxists' actual problem with religion was: it made people lazy. It kept them quiet and accepting of social injustice by promising a blissful world after death. (JUST LIKE MUSLIMS OMG.) It didn't really occur to him that religion could be a force for positive social change, because his society had seen so much of it being used to maintain an unjust status quo. This is why Christian Marxists exist - because religion isn't always an opiate. Sometimes it's an amphetamine.
Wishart also talks about Darwin's "survival of the fittest" appealing to Marxists, which is just plain odd. Which part of "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" sounds like survival of the fittest? If anything, it's under capitalism that the "fittest" are encouraged the flourish at the expense of those who, say, can't afford expensive healthcare.
The general gist of the chapter is this: Marx hated Christianity and saw Darwinism as a weapon against it. Marx also argued that controlling education is a first step to indoctrinating the people with Marxist ideals. Despite failing at everything else in life (including his marriage and personal finances), he succeeded in planting the Trojan Horse of Marxist ideology in Western education. That is why New Zealand children are taught about feminism and not about D-Day.
The assertion that someone who failed so spectacularly (Marx) got his revenge by planting the seeds of a culture's destruction is reminiscent of Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals, referring to Christian "slave morality" being the revenge of the Jews on the Rome that destroyed them.
Did I just associate Wishart with an anti-Semitic interpretation of Nietzsche?
Man.
This game's easy.
In an act of unprecedented brilliance, Trey Parker and Matt Stone of Southpark fame have produced a series of neat little animations set to recordings of Alan Watts (of The Way of Zen fame). Alan Watts had a tremendous impact on my life and thought, and Southpark makes me laugh. So, click here for Alan Watts Theatre.