Does the benefit system favour migrants?
It does according to the Daily Telegraph, who are just as capable of repeating BNP immigration myths while simultaneously distancing themselves from the extremists.
In a piece entitled 'Telegraph View' (I believe it's the leader column) published on Friday, there appears this line:
The white working class who live there are resentful of the way the benefits system is skewed towards immigrant families: the long tail of this recession could whip up yet more support for the BNP, despite its leader's feeble performance on Question Time.
Let me just run that past you again:
The white working class who live there are resentful of the way the benefits system is skewed towards immigrant families
Not 'appears to be' but 'is'. No evidence to back that assertion up. It just is. Skewed.
Now I know this is an opinion piece and as a piece of polemic is representing a particular point of view rather than an objective look at the facts. That's fine by me. But how is the benefit system "skewed towards immigrant families"?
The myths of queue-jumping have been exploded very clearly, time and time again. For example, one national newspaper in July this year covered a story which was headlined
Immigrants do not get housing priority, study shows
which had this quote:
The far-right [BNP] spread rumours in target seats that immigrants were given precedence in the queue for social housing accommodation.
Does that sound a bit like
the benefits system is skewed towards immigrant families
to you? Because it does to me. Still, the newspaper (which you have by now correctly identified as the Daily Telegraph) carried on:
The IPPR found no evidence of queue jumping or abuse of the system by immigrants but warned that those perceptions were widespread in certain areas.
Yes, I wonder which nasty types have been creating such perceptions? I imagine the kind of people who would say that the benefits system favours migrants - people like the Daily Telegraph, in its leader column - the column which "is the opinion of the Daily Telegraph".
Does the system favour migrants? Well, a look back through the Telegraph's very own archive yields this article, which states quite clearly:
A policy that stops Eastern European migrant workers accessing most benefits for at least a year is to remain in place amid fears lifting the restriction will increase unemployment among Britons.
The continued existence of the worker registration scheme for European migrants would appear to suggest that, far from actively favouring migrants, the benefit system is actively skewed against them.
How you get from that to saying the system is skewed in favour of migrants I'm not too sure. But it's nice to know it's not just the tabloids who are capable of mixing it with BNP-style rhetoric while at the same time pointing at Griffin and saying: "Ooh, look at the bad man".
Spotter's badge: Malcolm Coles
Lying about immigration? Surely not
This is not about Nick Griffin. I've decided I'm not going to mention the smellyfaced cockwipe on here for a few days, so that I'm not accused of being obsessed with the vile bastard or giving him any undue credit. So although this is about immigration lies, this is not about the man whose entire raison d'etre is immigration lies - partly because everyone knows he lies about immigration, whereas they may give a little more credence to what a reporter in their daily paper says; and partly because he's a shit-stuffed hatemonger who is getting lots of attention already, which he's presumably delighted about. The despicable weaselly-voiced lie-vomiting Nazi. So from here on in, he's not going to turn up at all.
No, while Gr*ff*n is fairly open about his stance on immigration, and you can be fairly confident he'll come out with lies to back up his unsavoury views, our newspapers represent a position from which they claim to be looking at the facts objectively and merely revealing what's going on. Which would be fine if that was indeed what they did. But no. They look for outlandish stories that will outrage their readers; they look for statistics that can be warped into shape; they look to give their blue-rinse brigade a ride in the "They're all coming over here!" ghost train at the breakfast table.
So we had the story earlier this week of a man being allowed to stay in the country just because he's got a cat. Except of course you know that's not the case. The cat had nothing to do with it; it was merely a minor detail in the case which everyone involved in it insisted had no bearing on the final result. Strange, then, that it was only the Telegraph who decided to bring that rather important point to our attention, with other newspapers simply hacking away at the facts until what remained was what they wanted to write: BLOODY FOREIGNER COMES OVER HERE AND WE CAN'T KICK HIM OUT BECAUSE HE'S GOT A BLEEDING CAT! YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP... oh. You could.
Not that that stopped Littlejohn, of course, who based his entire argument about the piece in the Daily Mail and ignored all the details in (marginally) better quality publications which showed what the facts were. Sometimes I wonder if he reads past the headlines. Oh but so what, you're saying to yourself, everyone knows Littlejohn is a tedious little man who mysteriously wins Polemicist of the Year awards despite constantly lying about immigration, telling porkies about PC Britain and basically never checking his facts - Why should all this matter? Well:
Unfortunately, for the BNP, Stormfront and other racist website/forums where this story has appeared, it is now accepted as 'fact'.
Guess what - racists care even less about the truth than Littlejohn. Once it's appeared in a national newspaper, though, they can use it as 'evidence' to back up their hatred, for there's still a degree of trust (albeit rapidly diminishing) in what people see on the printed page, as opposed to what's been typed onto a computer scren. Was it really a surprise that the horrific English Defence League used a video composed almost entirely of Daily Mail and Daily Express stories for its recent campaigning? Does it matter when newspapers get it wrong with agenda-driven rubbish? Yes. Yes it does, when it's giving racists, and violent racists at that, justification for their hatred.
And so to yesterday, and this marvellous sentence from Five Chinese Crackers:
Using the magic words, "according to the Daily Express," which is about on a par with saying, "according to that bloke swinging a plastic bag and shouting Bible verses in French next to Victoria Station," in terms of reliability, the Mail regales us with the same flipping figures I looked at way back in March...
Have a look at the post to see how the papers make the immigration figures misleading, and you can see for yourself what they're trying to do. MigrationWatch are the people sticking the coke in the furnace, but the Mail and Express know what they're doing. And when they don't have a new immigration story to lie about, like the man and his bloody cat, they simply regurgitate exactly what they wrote several months ago.
But why now? Look, I promised I wouldn't mention him again, but it's just that there's a certain arsehole appearing on a certain outdated politics programme on Thursday night, and to coincide with that, the most anti-immigration screamsheets are trying to do two things: firstly, to say that they are distancing themselves from him; secondly, to say that they are repeating his arguments word for word, then having thousands of rabid commenters turning up on the stories saying "I WANT TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO SAVE BRITAIN, LOVELY OLD NICK'S GOT MY VOTE AND NO MISTAKE!" - do you know, I just wish they'd come out, and be honest, and say: "Yes, we're only a fag-paper away from Griffin, what of it? We sell loads of papers based on absolute bollocks and lies about immigration, and our readers love it, because they're racist too. And what the fuck are you going to do about it?"
But no, they have to go through the same pantomime every time. We're not racist, but... here's some racism.
Meanwhile, today's Express carries yet another immigration scare story, this time about 40,000 'illegal immigrants' who have gone 'missing'. The files date from 2003 and many are not 'missing' but simply 'not here any more' or 'not traceable because they're here illegally and perhaps understandably don't want to draw attention to themselves'. It's not a new story - you'll remember that back in April, Boris Johnson called for an amnesty on illegal immigrants. But it's a story about immigration, which implies there's chaos, and THOUSANDS OF 'EM, and every week is immigration week at the Express - and luckily enough our friend at MigrationWatch was contactable, now there's a relief:
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the population think tank Migrationwatch, described the revelation as “Yet another skeleton in the Home Office cupboard.” He said: “This is symptomatic of the utter chaos in the asylum and immigration system during the past 10 years. Nobody in the private sector would get away with such a performance.”
'Population think tank' - yes, of course it is. Not a pressure group which attacks everything to do with immigration, no sir.
Of course, all these stories come from the same newspapers which do the tango with a certain fat one-eyed politician who shall not be named, but which then claim only to have brushed against him on their way to the toilet. And then they dismiss him and attack him in the strongest possible terms, with a nod and a wink to his supporters, who flock to their publications in droves.
Express atrocity update
This piece of shit
has now been withdrawn by the Express at the request of the Professor quoted, who was unequivocal when contacted by Ben Goldacre:
“I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix could be riskier or more deadly than cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix was controversial, I stated that Cervarix is not a ‘controversial drug’. I did not ‘hit out’ – I was contacted by the press for facts. And this was not an exclusive interview.”
Furthermore:
Professor Harper did not “develop Cervarix”, as the Sunday Express said, but she did work on some important trials of Gardasil, and also Cervarix. “Gardasil is not a ‘sister vaccine’ as the Express said, it is a different compound. I do not know of the side effects of Cervarix as it is not available in the US.” Furthermore she did not say that Cervarix was being over marketed. “I did say that Merck was egregiously overmarketing Gardasil in the US- but Gardasil and Cervarix are not the same vaccines.”
And also:
...Professor Harper has complained to the PCC. “I fully support the HPV vaccines,” she says. “I believe that in general they are safe in most women. I told the Express all of this.”
Which begs the question: if she did tell the Express all of this, why didn't they listen? One answer could be that they did listen, but cherrypicked the only things she did say that were slightly critical of the vaccine, then added a totally and utterly misleading headline in order to scare readers and flog a few more copies by lying to readers.
There's that possibility, of course.
Oopsy oopsy oopsy
Everyone makes mistakes. But some of us make mistakes more than others. You have to wonder, if someone makes the same kind of mistake again and again, whether it's down to sheer incompetence or not giving a flying one about the consequences. Consequences which in the case of the Pathetically Craven Commission mean a very nasty finger-wagging if you do something like ruining someone's life or completely misrepresenting them; or even a much sterner tut-tutting if you drive someone to suicide or destroy a dead person's memory.
Look at the Scottish Daily Express, which memorably slagged off Dunblane survivors for no reason whatsoever. The PCC said they were very naughty and they should do something about it. They haven't. The PCC has done nothing else, because it can do nothing else. Essentially, you can ignore its decisions entirely, and get away with it.
Ah, how reassuring that the PCC is there to upbraid the press when they get things wrong again, and again, and again, and again...
Over at Mailwatch I recently talked about an amazing transparent headrest which had appeared in a Mail article about Prince Harry and Caroline Flack off the telly. Someone complained that it wasn't accurate. The result?
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper – which believed that readers would have recognised that the photograph was a composite of the two images – separated the two photographs on the online version of the piece to make the distinction clearer, as it had done in the print version of the article.
Do you like the way that the paper gets a sarky little pompous dig at the complainant in as well? Oh surely everyone could tell! What, you mean like with this photo?
Yes, easy enough to just splice two images together to make them one. I mean, it's not as if you ever intend them to be the same image, is it?
I mean, everyone can see that, can't they?
It's so obvious they aren't the same image!
Relatedly, you will recall that the Mail put up an image of a peaceful Muslim protest in Luton to illustrate a rowdy anti-Army protest in Luton. Understandable oopsy, given that the details of the photograph were clearly visible in the electronic caption (see comments)? How did the PCC clamp down on this atrocious misrepresentation?
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper agreed to remove the picture from the online article and to publish online the following correction:
On May 25, 2009, we published an article ‘Nine arrested after masked mob’s march against Muslim extremists turns violent’, in which we inadvertently included an archive photograph of a peaceful unconnected parade held in Luton some weeks earlier. We are happy to clarify that this march had in fact passed without incident and regret our error in wrongly captioning the photograph.
Oh so that's all right then. And how prominent is this article - as prominent as the original one was? No. Of course it isn't. But then that's fine, according to the PCC. The damage can be done as large as you like, so long as the apology is tucked neatly away, then that's the matter 'resolved', isn't it? I love the way the PCC describes things as resolved. Perhaps if you went round their house and did a shit on their front lawn you could 'resolve' the matter by putting an atom-sized apology next to it? I think they'd be fine with that.
Next!
COMPLAINT:
Medway NHS Foundation Trust complained that an article inaccurately reported the treatment of a man who had died at Medway Maritime Hospital. The Trust also complained about an article which alleged that staff had posed for a charity calendar when they should have been working. In fact, the calendar was produced by staff in their own time.RESOLUTION:
The matter was resolved when the newspaper published the following letter from the Trust’s chief executive, Andrew Horne:
Staff at Medway Maritime Hospital who took part in creating a fundraising calendar (Mail) made use of hospital facilities but did so entirely in their own time. The Trust is currently investigating the tragic death of Stewart Fleming in December.
Yes, we may have written utter shit about staff at this workplace but we have allowed you to write in a fucking letter to correct the matter, which we got entirely and completely wrong, so that makes it all right, doesn't it?
Next!
COMPLAINT:
Mr David Johnson complained on behalf of his son Haydn that a comment piece about the tragic death of his friend, fellow student Rachel Ward, in Val d’Isere contained inaccuracies. Specifically, the complainant made clear that his son had not received an answerphone message from Miss Ward saying that she was lost on the night of her death. In addition, the complainant disagreed with the columnist’s view that his son had failed in his duty of care, had “abandoned” Miss Ward and acted in an unchivalrous manner.RESOLUTION:
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper made a note of the complainant’s points on its internal records for future reference in addition to removing the article from its website.
But no apology, obviously. Yes, this man has gone through a terrible ordeal and lost someone very close to him, and been wrongly and incorrectly slagged off by some pompous bastard columnist who doesn't give a shit about people's feelings, and his father has quite rightly stood up for his son, but it's all right, because they've removed the article. No apology. No saying sorry for getting it so catastrophically wrong and smearing a bereaved person all over the papers. No. They've removed the article, so it's 'resolved'.
Next!
COMPLAINT:
Mr James Cole expressed concern that the headline “Scientists discover the brain’s ‘God spot’ and show that faith helps human survival” was inaccurate as it did not reflect the statements made by the scientists concerned. He said the existence of a “God spot” had been denied by those who undertook the research and, contrary to what was stated in the headline, the research had not shown that faith helped human survival.RESOLUTION:
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper changed the headline of the online article to read “Research into brain’s ‘God spot’ reveals areas of brain involved in religious belief”.
Yes, so the Mail may have entirely misrepresented the work of these scientists, but they can simply change the online headline, and that makes everything all right, doesn't it? I mean it's not as if they've misled loads of readers in the meantime, is it?
Next!
COMPLAINT:
Mr Maurice Greenham, the National AIDS Trust and the Children’s HIV Association complained that an article about foster parents not being informed of the possible HIV status of their foster children contained a number of inaccuracies.
RESOLUTION:
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following correction on the matter:Following comments in an article on 23 February about foster parents not being informed of the possible HIV status of their foster children, we would like to make clear that it is highly unlikely that a child born to an HIV positive mother would develop HIV where appropriate drugs have been administered during delivery. There has never been a recorded case of a family caring for an HIV positive infant being infected. It takes three months – not eighteen – to ascertain the HIV status of a child born to an HIV positive mother.
Oh at last, a correction. Wonder if it was as prominent as the article that misled so many readers in the first place? What do you reckon? I think I have a pretty fair idea.
So there we have it. The Mail gets it wrong again, and again, and again, and again. They're not the only newspaper to do so, but they do pop up in the PCC adjudications time and time again. Sometimes it's not too serious, merely entirely misrepresenting a scientific study for example; sometimes it's really serious and unpleasant, for example making peaceful Muslims out to be rowdy protesters, or smearing the good name of someone who has recently been through a terrible tragedy. The PCC says this is all perfectly fine so long as they make tiny amends afterwards, and then everything's tickety-boo, isn't it? And there you have it. This is the redress available to those who can't hire the top legal lawyers. A tiny correction shoved away in the middle of nowhere, and no apology at all.
Those people at the PCC must be really proud of themselves.
‘No border controls’ – Iain Dale’s reality
I'm not the kind of person to kick a man when he's down, even if he's the most pompous twit going. Oh, who am I kidding? Of course I am. Anyway, look, Iain Dale may have apologised for a dreadful piece of personal-agenda-driven single-source journalism which has (hooray! thanks Iain! Buy you a pint sometime!) likely cost the Mail on Sunday a few tens of thousands of pounds. But I don't think he's apologised for this:
What do you expect when you have no border controls?
You don't believe that actually happened, do you? Let's run that one past you one more time:
What do you expect when you have no border controls?
And again, because you're still trying to work it out:
What do you expect when you have no border controls?
Aha, you're thinking to yourself, come off it Vowl, you're taking this quote out of context aren't you. OK well here's the quote in full:
Uponnothing, sorry but that is a very ill informed comment. Questioning whether multiculturalism has worked is nothing new. David Davis wrote an article in 2005 on the subject which people of all political persuasions endorsed. It's nothing to do with Phillips being black. I mention it becuase of his position with the Equalities Commission.
And we do have uncontrolled immigration. What do you expect when you have no border controls? What feeds the BNP is when we regard immigration as a subject which isnt talked about in polite society.
It's a classic argument, which I had a look at the other day - that somehow the spectral Left are responsible for the BNP because immigration is a taboo subject thanks to the evil PC Brigade and their nasty ways. As an aside, Dale is also on record as saying the BNP are left-wing, which neatly combines two bogeymen in one.
There's an additional element to all this. And that's the classic Daily Mail argument, to claim that the BNP are essentially bad lot while almost simultaneously using their arguments. Just look at today's front page:
Well, I imagine there have been fascists on the Palace lawn before - Lord Rothermere's granddaddy, for one. And yes, it's to be welcomed that the Mail should turn its nose up at the BNP - but on the other hand, they spend a lot of their time recycling lies about immigration which the BNP then go on to use. Are they really that far away from the far-right bogeymen? If I were a BNP member (and thankfully I'm not) I'd probably take the Mail and Express as newspapers; I'd also be a bit miffed that these two papers, while constantly providing me with a diet of lies about immigration that reinforced my prejudices, then claimed to distance themselves from the party that has the strongest anti-immigration agenda. That would be puzzling.
Now there's nothing inherently wrong with agreeing with things the BNP says as a concept. Let's imagine the BNP suddenly did a Time Trumpet and bolted on a green policy agenda to their racism - it's not actually beyond the realms when you consider that the founders of the Soil Association had fascist links, 'purity of blood and soil' and all that - then of course you can agree with those bits that you agree with. So it would be foolish to imagine that one simply can't agree with anything they say.
On the other hand, what sort of honest debate is to be had about immigration when people say things like this?
What do you expect when you have no border controls?
Because, as anyone who's ever had to queue in a zig-zag for half an hour at Bristol Airport on a wet Wednesday night, there are such things as border controls. They actually do exist. I have seen them. With. My. Eyes. I've even (badly) blogged about the bloody thing previously. They do exist. So what's Dale saying? That they don't exist? Really? Surely not. Perhaps the point is that they're so insignificant as to be non-existent? Maybe. But the rules are tighter than they have been for decades, so that's demonstrably not true. And far from being 'uncontrolled', which Dale claims, non-EU immigration is stringently controlled.
As Upon Nothing puts it:
What is interesting is that the BNP sometimes bemoan the lack of real debate about immigration and that Iain does the same here. However, how can we have a real debate when you (and the BNP) have already drawn the conclusion that 'we do have uncontrolled immigration'. The statement that we 'have no border controls' is utterly ludicrous and cannot possibly be backed up by Iain.
There will be no real debate about immigration - sensible or otherwise - until people like Dale wake up to the fact it is controlled, and that there are border controls, rather than peddling a set of hysterical half-truths and outright nonsense. You can slag off the BNP as much as you like and think that gets you off the hook, but if you believe the same rubbish they do, and say the same rubbish they do, then that doesn't place you a million miles away from them.
Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies
Look, I don't mind that Nadine Dorries is anti-abortion. That's fine, completely understandable, and perfectly acceptable that she should have this view, and make her deeply held beliefs part of her politics.
That's fine. Imagine we're on Bullseye and her deeply held beliefs are the money won for Eric Bristow in the 'throwing for charity' round. "Your money for the hospice, now that's safe," Jim Bowen would say, explaining the impending gamble of Scalextric/tumble dryer for speedboat 'hiding behind Bully'. So the deeply held beliefs about abortion bit, that's safe. That's not something that I'm going to quibble with here. So the deeply held beliefs on abortion, that's fine.
It's the lying bit that's a bit wrong. It's the fact that she's lied again, and again, and again, and again, to try and misrepresent the facts about abortion. Indeed, if I were an anti-abortion I would be positively out of my mind about the lies, lies, lies, lies and damned lies that she has spun in the name of debate.
For no-one has done more to discredit the anti-abortion movement than Dorries. No-one has done more to destroy its integrity. She is an utter disgrace to that movement, those people and to the Conservative Party, as well as to blogging and politics in general. Iain Dale, inventor of the internet don't you know, doesn't come out of all this very well either. But then he's a big fan of 'different kinds of rape' pig John Redwood, so why does anyone expect any different?
More at Bloggerheads. And Obsolete.
It beggars belief
I don't talk much about the red-tops, apart from the Sun, so it's probably time for a bit of balance. The Mirror has come up with a disgraceful anti-journalism, anti-reason, anti-truth story exploiting the disappearance of Shannon Matthews and pursuing a bonkers loony nut-nut agenda of specious bullshit.
As with the Mail's evisceration of stroke victim Carol Barnes, there appears to have been no consideration as to the feelings of Matthews' relatives. Let's just pile in with a bit of idle speculation, nonsensical non-science and end-of-the-pier hokum to try and crowbar a new and meaningless 'angle' into an already tragic story. Missing girl? Hmm, not enough. Let's get a 'psychic' in to try and sift through the evidence. Jesus. Wept. This is 2008, not 1919.
On my bookshelf is a lovely dusty old volume called 'When Fleet Street Calls' by JC Cannell, a real old-school journalist in the heyday of the press who covered, among other things, the R101 airship disaster. But his main focus of investigation was in exposing mediums and clairvoyants, popular at that time, who were, he felt, exploiting the vulnerable and weak for monetary gain and fame. A journalist did that. Journalists used to be able to do that. They used to be able to expose conmen, cheats and frauds.
No longer.
Missing Shannon Matthews' mum Karen has dramatically been told by a psychic: "She was taken by someone you both know."
It appears the distraught mother, who hopefully didn't read Allison Pearson's sewer pipe of class hatred and snobbery the other day in the Hate Mail, has turned to a 'psychic' in desperation.
This 'psychic' should have known better. It's all right having a bit of a laugh with people, telling them their futures and whether they'll be married, how many kids they're going to have etc, because that's all bullshit, but when someone is in a particularly vulnerable state - with a child missing - then only one of two conclusions is possible. Either the poor deluded idiot really believes they're a psychic, in which case newspapers shouldn't have any truck with trying to give credence to their nonsensical ramblings; or they're just deliberately providing false information to someone who is in a desperate, weak state through the use of guesswork, making stuff up and cold-reading techniques.
James Randi has been particularly scathing of 'celebrity psychic' Sylvia Browne, who has failed, failed and failed again to find missing children, occasionally bringing false hope to parents who were told by her their children were alive when in fact they had been killed long ago. The mistakes and guesses are airbrushed out of history, and she still gets a slot on prime-time TV on the Montel Williams show. I see this case as no different, and just as morally bankrupt - when you know there is no way of knowing a child is safe or not, how can you bring yourself to tell her parent that she is alive? How does that sit with you? Can you sleep at night, knowing you've done that, knowing what might happen in a day, or a week, or a month's time?
On we go in the Mirror. My anger is rising as I read:
But the clairvoyant reassured her that her nine-year-old daughter was still alive.
A relative of distraught Karen, 32, revealed last night: "What he said really got to her as he knew a lot of personal information.
Cold-reading technique.
She will try anything to get Shannon back."
I imagine she will. It's very sad.
Detectives have examined a tape of Karen's one-hour meeting with the expert. It is thought to have sparked her tearful outburst earlier this week that she feared the culprit came from her circle of friends and relatives.
If only they were examining it in a bid to find evidence of criminal activity. But what this psychic has done is perfectly legal. What's unforgivable is the Mirror giving credence to these charlatans by failing to challenge them. Another example of tabloid churn; here today, forgot tomorrow. But not for Shannon Matthews' parents.
Theoretically speaking
A marvellous thing has happened for scientists and scholars everywhere: Charles Darwin's entire works have been put online here. Searchable, clickable, linkable... wonderful. It's all there, the Origin of Species, the Descent of Man, even sketches and notebooks - the whole shooting match. For me, this is what the internet is actually all about and should always have been all about, though I'm sure there are Web 2.0 disciples out there who are a bit miffed that you're not allowed to write 'what a load of shit' at the bottom and run off giggling.
But have a look at this report on the Darwin website by the BBC and see if you can spot what it is that disturbed me. Just a little phrase in there that should set a couple of alarm bells ringing.
The anonymous BBC drone writes:
The resource is aimed at serious scholars, but can be used by anyone with an interest in Darwin and his theory on the evolution of life.
and
His theory on evolution has influenced many science disciplines
One word. Theory.
Theory of evolution.
In 2007, we're still talking about a 'theory' of evolution?
Make no mistake: that word is significant. It doesn't just pop into sentences about Darwin and evolution unless it's meant to. It's not an accident. Let me make a comparison. Let's see what the BBC write about Isaac Newton here:
However, in 1687, with the support of his friend the astronomer Edmond Halley, Newton published his single greatest work, the 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' ('Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy'). This showed how a universal force, gravity, applied to all objects in all parts of the universe.
There's no doubt about that, is there? No 'theory' of gravity. It's written as if it's fact - which of course it is to all rational scientists. But so is evolution, to all but the most wilfully ignorant of scientists, all but the extremists, the religious wingnuts who can't swallow the idea of evolution as a fact so try to get it taught as a theory instead.
It's in the classroom that the religio-fascists try to get their way, more specifically in the United States, though my own country isn't immune of course, as this creationist zoo near where I live shows - the website doesn't give much of a clue as to what's inside, and parents could be forgiven for thinking it's a zoo like any other... but when you get inside, the 'educational' side of the visit is taken up with pseudo-scientific explanations for the Bible and attacks on evolution. This is an attraction for children, I remind you.
Heaven forbid (yes, pun intended) you might try and be a politician, particularly on the right in America, unless you're determined to be a completely ignorant bastard about the truth of evolution:
Huckabee later added, "If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it."
This isn't some complete jerk who's entered the presidential race as a bit of a joke. He's a former governor of Arkansas; he's someone who has garnered millions of dollars and thousands of backers in support of his push for the Republican nomination. He's someone who genuinely thinks - maybe thinks is the wrong word; believes - that human beings aren't descended from primates. He clearly has the intelligence of a gnat, created or evolved.
And he's also a baptist, as CNN finds it important to tell us. What? Is religion really that important? How about libertarian, liberal, socialist, Keynesian, monetarian? There isn't room for that on the CNN profiles, apparently. All we know is the religious status of these politicians: you have Hilary Clinton (methodist) against Rudy Giuliani (catholic); Barack Obama ('christian') against Fred Thompson ('protestant'), and so on, and so on. Not an atheist among any of the leading contenders, by the way. Not a single one of them with the cojones to try and be honest about it. Is it just that atheists don't want to be president? Or that a president could never (again) be an atheist? Even an agnostic? No? Are things really worse than I thought?
Here's another worrying sign. I put 'Darwin' into Google News to see how they'd be covering the release of the documents, seeing as I'd only just read about it on the BBC. And the search came up with this piece of excrement. In the news section. The fucking news section! Interestingly enough, I didn't come up with any such article from an opposing political standpoint. Is that because science is too smug about itself? Does it take it for granted that evolution is accepted as fact by all except a minority of stubborn religious limpets, clinging on against the tide? Well, it shouldn't.
There's still a battle to be fought by reason against these idiots. There's still a case to be made against those who pollute the internet with lies, fake science and religious rubbish. There are still those who would insist on calling evolution a 'theory', and some of them will be writing articles about science. Putting Darwin online is the beginning of that battle for reason; it's a wonderful step forward that will hopefully allow children of whatever upbringing to look at the great man's work and decide for themselves whether evolution by natural selection, or a fairy story, is how the world of today came about. As the American presidential race shows us, there is still much to be done.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Workbrain
- So Solid Wiki fun
- Quentin Letts killed by a woodchipper
- I just sent Robin round
- Kim Jong Ill
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Maxine on Workbrain
- Sirenofbrixton on Workbrain
- Katie on Workbrain
- bernard on Workbrain
- Darren on Workbrain
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.