"There is but one way to know the truth, and that is not a golden one. It is fraught with toil and sacrifice and perhaps ridicule. The seeker of the truth must be fearless, he must not be afraid to enter the innermost holies of holies, and to tear down the veils of superstition that hang about any human and so-called divine institution. It is the truth that makes men free. If the truth tears down every church and government under the sun, let the truth be known and this truth only will be known when men cease to swallow the capsules of ancient doctors of divinities and politics; and when men begin to seek the truth in the records of history, politics, religion, and science."
- Charles Austin Beard, 1898
George W. Bush has a new website up, and upon seeing it, you have to admit -- this is a campaign that "gets" the web. Their website consolidates many of the tools that the Democratic challengers and their supporters have been experimenting with, and they are well implemented. Particularly impressive is their Action Center, which has one the the coolest, most useful tools I've ever seen:
If you scroll about halfway down the page, you'll see a field where you can input your zip code -- once you do, you'll be given a large list of newspapers and radio shows in your area, complete with contact information for each of them. It's mighty impressive.
Well, George Bush might have some good tools, but we have the online organization -- and tools mean nothing without good, motivated activists. However, we can do a lot with those tools, and we mean to.
Matt Singer and I originally conceived of this as a project for the DDF, but we quickly realized this wasn't candidate specific -- this is for every lefty in America. So here is what we propose. We want to get a coalition together -- every influential and non-influential lefty site with the ability to direct readers and members over to the Bush action tools. And every Friday, we want to use those tools to write letters and make calls highlighting a different part of the Bush disaster. This Friday will be fiscal irresponsibility day -- where we blanket the media with calls and letters about Bush's absurd fiscal policies. We're even going to get you the info, for instance, behold the Bush Record (if you're not a Dean supporter, just ignore the stuff about Dean).
Sounds like fun. I signed up and plan to take part. Why don't you do the same?
We are so used to the routine circularity of our astronomical lives — the Moon revolving around us as we spin our way around the Sun — that we forget what a universe of singularities this really is. Some things happen every day, like sunrise and sunset, some only once a year, like annual meteor showers, and some occur on more elliptical schedules, like the return of certain comets. And then there are the rare conjunctions of heavenly bodies that would be starkly visible to us if we lived without artificial light, but that most of us have to admire intellectually instead. A case in point is the present proximity of Mars.
Next Wednesday, Mars and Earth will be almost as close together as they ever get: 34,646,418 miles apart. At dark, under the red glare of Mars, which is now the brightest object in the night sky, that number is very hard to take literally. So is the fact that 59,619 years ago, Earth's Neanderthals were staring skyward and wondering just how close that red planet was going to come. That was the last time Earth and Mars were so near. Sixty thousand years is the blink of an eye in our planet's long history. But the Neanderthals still had some 30,000 years left, and the whole of what humans have done and undone was undreamt of. In 284 years Mars and Earth will be closer still, and someone will look back upon us and wonder what those 284 years have meant. It is impossible to guess from here.
Even with a good pair of binoculars you should be able to see features on Mars. Be sure to check out the ice cap which will be spectacular. I plan to break out my telescope for a week of intense Mars watching.
MONTGOMERY, Ala., Thursday, Aug. 21 - Midnight came and went, but the rock did not roll.
By 12:01 this morning, Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama was to have removed the 5,280-pound monument of the Ten Commandments that he secretly installed one night in the lobby of the State Supreme Court. A federal judge had ruled that the granite block, known as Roy's Rock, violated the separation of church and state.
But Justice Moore did not budge. And he had a lot of people right behind him. His monument has been like a magnet for Christian advocates, and as the night wore on its powers seemed to increase.
As the clock struck 12, the crowd assembled in front of the courthouse burst into "God Bless America." The muggy plaza was clogged with dozens of little girls wearing Jesus T-shirts, bearded men with thick arms and Confederate flags on their backs, black people, white people, the young, the old, the in between, a man who walked from Texas dressed in a monk's frock and another who drove from San Diego in a red truck with a sign that said "Shame on America."
They were here to make sure that when the deadline elapsed no federal officers stormed the courthouse and wheeled away the monument.
The consequence of this action will be a $5,000.00 fine for each day Justice Moore defies the court order.
Judge Myron H. Thompson of Federal District Court, who has presided over this case brought by several civil liberties groups, tried to take the path of least resistance. It was nine months ago, on Nov. 18, that Judge Thompson issued his own commandment: Thou shalt remove thy monument.
Judge Thompson ruled that placing a 4-foot-tall stone block of the Ten Commandments in the court's lobby was "nothing less than an obtrusive year-round religious display."
"The only way to miss the religious or nonsecular appearance of the monument would be to walk through the Alabama State Judicial Building with one's eyes closed," he wrote.
His ruling had a tone of outrage to it. But Judge Thompson was patient. He granted Justice Moore until midnight to comply with the removal order. After several failed appeals, that ruling stands.
Moore has been compared to another Alabamian who enjoyed defying federal courts, George Wallace. However I think what Moore is doing is much worse. Wallace was a governor whereas Moore is a Judge, a Chief Justice no less, and as an officer of the court, I view his defiance to be a lot more serious.
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras, Aug. 20 - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the United States and Latin America faced "a terrible problem" from terrorism and drug trafficking and suggested that American forces might be realigned in Central and South America.
But at a news conference after talks with President Ricardo Maduro of Honduras, he said he had nothing to announce on possible increases in the United States military presence in the region.
Mr. Rumsfeld told American troops stationed at nearby Soto Cano Air Base that he and senior United States military officers would be discussing possible realignment of the American military presence in Latin America in coming weeks.
"We have to figure out how we have to be arranged with the peace-loving countries here in the region," he said.
"We've got a terrible problem from terrorism in certain places," he added at the end of a two-day trip to Central and South America to promote the efforts against drug trafficking. "We've got a terrible problem with drugs and narco-traffickers and the billions of dollars that flow into their coffers for them to use in ways that are harmful to peace-loving people."
Over the weekend I got an email from Toby, a good friend of mine, urging me to check out Marc Salem's show on the SciFi Channel. Toby thought that Marc would make a good subject for an expose.
But he does not and for one very good reason. See Marc Salem does not claim to be psychic. At least no where that I could find.
So just who and what is Marc Salem? Well he is a mentalist. A mentalist is a magician that does tricks to make it appear that he has psychic powers, but admits that there is nothing supernatural about what he does. A good example is The Amazing Kreskin (for those that can remember that far back). Much like Kreskin I saw Marc perform pretty much standard mentalism routines with a few magic tricks thrown in.
Marc is pretty fantastic at what he does, and well he should. His credentials are impeccable, as is his background:
Marc Salem has been a student of the human mind for over 30 years. As an academic he holds advanced degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and New York University, and has been on faculty of several major universities for close to two decades. He is considered one of the world¹s foremost authorities on non-verbal communication. How the mind creates reality and meaning has been his major focus.
As a researcher Professor Salem has traveled the globe exploring the mind and its potential. He was a director of research at Sesame Street studying the development and nature of the mental process.
As an entertainer Marc has performed around the world, astounding and entertaining millions. His show MIND GAMES concluded two extended runs off- Broadway to both critical and popular acclaim. It was followed by a six month run at the legendary Century Theatre in Detroit. His show MIND GAMES AND ALL THE JAZZ broke all records at Feinstein's Night Club at the Regency in New York and won the Backstage 2001 performer of the year award .
As to how Marc accomplishes his amazing feats:
Using psychological techniques, visual information, a sharp eye for human nature, a quick wit and 20 years of training, Marc Salem breaks that eternal lock on the mind. By opening that door, he raises fascinating questions that continue to excite philosophers and scientists today.
[...]
Nothing Mare Salem does is supernatural, and this guide was written only to challenge your mind, not to make it up for you
So really there is nothing to expose. Marc is a legitimate performer and far be it from me to spoil his act. In fact, I will go farther and say if you get a chance to see Marc's show "Mind Games" I highly recommend it. You will be amazed!
Sorry for lack of update but this has been a busy time for computer nerds. A few WANs (Wide Area Networks) lost connection with companies that lost power on Friday. So I have been working with some clients to get things back in order.
But I will take the time today to mention we have some new members of the blog roll. While I am busy why don't you give them a read? There's some good stuff out there.
Once again I ask that if you have my blog on your roll, please let me know. I will be more than happy to come over, check out your blog, and add a link here.
I should have some spare time tomorrow. At least, I hope so.
I am doing a re-post of an earlier article on tort reform. Here in Texas (and other parts of the country for all I know) we were treated by a series of commercials on what the U. S. Chamber of Commerce called "The Lawsuit Abuse Tax". Unfortunately the website for this stupidity is gone. But the .pfd file of how they came up with this "tax" is still around.
More important than that, it gave me the chance to talk about one of the most misunderstood tort cases of the past 20 years, that of the McDonald's Hot Coffee Caper.
The article below has been reformatted to make it a bit more easy to read, and I have included restatement 402a, a very important tort rule in this case.
A funny ad by the U. S. Chamber of Commerce tries to blame Lawyers for the High Price of Life
Here in Houston we have been bombarded lately with an ad by the Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. It calls for an end to what it calls the "Lawsuit Abuse Tax". This dovetails nicely with Rick Perry's attempt to claim the ability to lower medical cost by ending, yes that's right, lawsuit abuse.
Now everyone can agree that lawsuit abuse is a bad thing. We can all agree that it causes higher prices. However, both Rick Perry and the Chamber of Commerce define lawsuit abuse differently than I would. To me, lawsuit abuse are those people that fake falls in supermarkets or acts like they were hit by a car. But to Rick and the CC it is the very ability to sue that they view as abuse.
Tort reform by any other name. I have always been an opponent of Tort reform because as far as I can see there is nothing that needs to be reformed. It is used as a scare tactic and this commercial (and webpage) (link no longer works) is a perfect example of a misinformation campaign. Let's take a closer look shall we?
The ad opens with an young lady buying shoes. "You don't know it but you pay it every day" the voice over says, "The Lawsuit Abuse Tax" as the words "Lawsuit Abuse Tax" flashes across the shoes. "When you bought your new car lawsuit abuse cost you five hundred dollars". An older African American is shown unlocking his car as the price of five hundred and sixteen dollars flashes across the driver side window. "Every day you pay" the voice intones and proceeds to list seventy cents for blue jeans, three dollars and twelve cents for a week's worth of groceries. "Phoney lawsuits cause higher prices" as we are shown various items and the additional cost. "Nearly $1900.00 a year for a family of four". Wow, sounds scary don't it? And just how does the Chamber of Commerce calculate this "lawsuit abuse tax"? Why, by multiplying .02 by the cost of the item, no matter what that item is. From the webpage: (link no longer works)
"How We Calculate the Lawsuit Abuse Tax"
"The White House Council of Economic Advisors has released a study that calculates the intermediate cost of excessive litigation to be $136 billion a year."
"This translates into a 2% sales tax on all goods and services purchased by consumers in the United States."
"The lawsuit abuse tax for each item shown in our advertising and on this Web site is calculated by calculating 2% of the cost of each product shown."
"In fact, you can calculate the lawsuit abuse tax you pay for whatever product you buy by multiplying its price by .02. Try it the next time you go shopping."
"Using the White House Council of Economic Advisors figure of $136 billion a year means each individual American pays nearly $475 a year in hidden lawsuit abuse taxes. The average family of four pays four times that amount or nearly $1900 a year."
"If your family is bigger or smaller than four, you can calculate your family's lawsuit abuse tax by multiplying the number of people in your family by $473.69."
It is hard to control laughter at this moment but I am trying. I went to visit the White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) to see if I could get a better handle on the methodology. It's hopeless. I downloaded the report (Tort Liability System, April 2002) (warning .pdf file) but it gave me no more information than the website. They claim a yearly "direct" cost of "nearly" $180 billion dollars and count towards that total "Direct costs include awards for economic and non-economic damages, administration, claimants’ attorney fees and the costs of defense." They have lots of lovely charts and graphs. Mucho statistics. And a hell of a lot of assumption. The bottom line is that the problem lies with "excessive" awards. No where in this document could I find a definition of excessive. In fact the paper admits as much:
"An even more difficult issue is deciding how much of this $180 billion is economically "excessive." There is no easy or widely accepted empirical answer to this question. To the extent that awards are largely "random" and fail to provide incentives to firms, most, or even all, of the tort expenses are excessive. Alternatively, to the extent that damages awarded to claimants are a good proxy for the actual damages caused, the fraction of tort costs that go to claimants to compensate for damages, plus reasonable "transactions costs," could be loosely viewed as the "right" level, and costs above this amount as being excessive."
Well I am certainly going to trust that "most or even all" tort expenses are excessive.
This all starts with the infamous case of the McDonald hot coffee. Never has there been a court case so misunderstood, so filled with misinformation as this one case. It is a shame too because McDonald's got exactly what it deserved. Here are a few facts about the Case of the Hot Coffee that you might not know about.
First off the victim (for victim she certainly was) Stella Liebeck was not some greedhead hoping to benefit from stupidity, she did not want to bring a lawsuit at all. She was forced to hire a lawyer when McDonald's refused to pay the reasonable cost of her medical bills $20,000 a paltry amount considering that she would have to reimburse Medicare $10,000. When they got the request McDonald's countered with an offer of $800. After she finally filed suit in state court, a court-appointed mediator recommended that McDonald's settle the case for $225,000. The company refused. Just before trial, Stella's attorney offered to settle for $300,000. McDonald's again refused.
Second, she was not driving the car, nor was the car in motion when the coffee spilled. She and her grandson (who was driving the car) stopped at the drive through window. The grandson pulled forward and stopped the car in order for Stella to add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee between her legs in attempting to pull the cover off of the Styrofoam cup. She spilled the coffee which soaked the sweat pants she was wearing, causing the whole works to stick to her skin. The poor woman suffered second and third degree burns over 6% of her body, requiring a seven day hospital stay including such fun things as skin grafts. All things considered $20,000 could no way be considered excessive.
Third, McDonald's coffee was served at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. To give you an idea of just how hot that is most adults will suffer third-degree burns if exposed to 150 degree water for two seconds. Burns will also occur with a six-second exposure to 140 degree water or with a 30 second exposure to 130 degree water. Even if the temperature is 120 degrees, a five minute exposure could result in third-degree burns (click here). Home brewed coffee is generally 135 degrees and the restaurant industry recommends serving temperature be at least 20 degrees lower than what McDonald's chose to use.
Fourth, McDonald's was perfectly aware that the coffee was dangerously hot. Between 1982 and 1992, McDonald's had 700 court cases regarding serious burns due to the excessive temperature of their coffee including children burned when employee's spilled coffee on them while serving. The problem was so bad that the Shriners Burn Institute in Cincinnati had reported to fast-food chains like McDonald's about serious injuries caused by hot coffee.
Five, McDonald's had no intention of changing the temperature of their coffee nor of settling the case. A hired consultant claimed that coffee held at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit maintains it's optimum taste yet he admitted that he had not tested the safety of serving coffee at that temperature. P. Robert Knaff, a safety consultant for McDonald's, testified that there was no cause to turn down the heat. The reason: With billions of cups served annually, less than a thousand burn injuries over a decades was statistically insignificant. McDonald's thought it was worth keeping up the heat allegedly to improve taste and ensure that coffee stayed hot for later consumption. Needless to say the jury reacted to all this with a certain amount of horror. juror Jack Elliot, retired real estate agent, told The Washington Post that he was skeptical of Stella's case until he "heard the callous testimony" of McDonald's witnesses. The claim of McDonald's expert Knaff that the many documented burn cases were statistically insignificant amount the billions of cups McDonald's has sold "did not set well with the jury." They awarded Stella 200,000 in direct damage and a whopping 2.7 million in punitive damage or two days worth of McDonald's coffee sales. Another juror pointed out that "The idea behind the punitive damages was not to enrich the plaintiff, but to get McDonald's attention. They knew their coffee was served so hot that it could severely hurt people. But McDonald's employees did not care about that people being burned. They knew there was a problem, there had been at least seven hundred cases over many years, and yet they had taken no action to study the matter or adequately warn their customers. Their callous disregard was very upsetting."
McDonald's was liable for Stella's injuries from a strict legal viewpoint. This is called tort law (you remember tort law right? That is the law that right wing idjits think need to be fixed.) In order for the jury to decided against McDonald's they had to make these determinations:
1) Is there a high degree of risk of some harm in the way that McDonald's served their coffee?. Yes there was. McDonald's served their coffee at 20 degree above the industry standard. As we have already seen getting coffee spilled on you at 180 degrees would cause a great deal of harm. 2) Is the likelihood that if harm occurs that the harm will be great? Again yes. They knew that they served their coffee too hot and that accidents involving the coffee caused serious burns. 3 ) Was there an inability to eliminate the risk using reasonable care? Of course not. All it would have taken was for McDonald's to lower their coffee 20 degrees to match industry standards. 4) How usual was the action involved? Gee do I really need to point out how usual it is to remove the top of a cup of coffee to put cream and sugar in it? 5) Was the activity inappropriate to the place in which it takes place? This is perhaps the only hook critics have to hang their hat on. It could be argued that a car is not the best place to try to put sugar and cream in coffee, but McDonald's never did argue that. Considering that every other point would have gone against them, I am pretty sure I know why. Do you? 6) Was the value to the community (McDonald's serving coffee 20 degrees above normal industry standards) enough to offset it's high risk? Well there is a great big no. The only value to serving coffee that hot was to McDonald's. Certainly the community would not have suffered if they had chosen to lower the temperature.
Then we have restatement 402a:
Under restatement 402a One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or though his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer or to his property if:a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product and b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold. This holds even if the seller has exercised in all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product. - A Concise Restatement of TORTS, Compiled by Kenneth S. Abraham and Albert Clark Tate Jr. The American Law Institute Publishers, pp 81-90
So was the award excessive? Well a judge thought so, he reduced the amount of the award to $480,000, something else that was not widely reported. However my feeling is that two days worth of coffee sales was not excessive at all, considering that the jury was trying to punish McDonald's. See, what the U. S. Chamber of Commerce fails to tell you is that they believe that any attempt to hit them with punitive damages is excessive. They don't know what abusive is, check out the odious record of the Church of Scientology. They have brought lawsuit abuse to a fine art.
I agree that it is sad that companies are able to pass the cost of doing lousy business to the consumer, who they are screwing in the first place. If you want real reform I suggest doing something about that. However attempting to limit how much a jury awards a plaintiff in such cases does nothing more than hamstring the justice system. How can we ever expect to teach a company a lesson if we make it so that no matter how bad they behave, they will merely get a slap on the wrist. McDonald's makes millions of dollars each year, two days worth of coffee sales is nothing to them, even less the $480 thousand Stella eventually got.
Tort reform would be meaningful if we punished people that bring frivolous lawsuits to court. We do not. Or if we were worried about fraud. We are not. No the whole of the tort reform movement is to limit how much a company has to pay for acting like a jerk. Here in Texas we also like to blame trial lawyers for the sorry state of affairs, as the lawsuit abuse tax site makes clear. This is nonsense but hey, if we can get people to distrust those that bring such suits to court, well so much the better. Yet it is not lawyers that decided how much a person receives. Nor can you blame them for trying to get as much as possible for their client, that is after all, their job. Lawyer's did not break the system, in a very real way, it is the Chamber of Commerce that is breaking the system. Pity the poor multinational corporation that makes a billion bucks a year. It is so sad that the American public would try to make them pay.
Bah!
Go and read the website and instead ask yourself, is it worth an extra $1900 a year to provide a measure of safety to your family of four. I don't know about you, but I think it is cheap at twice the cost!
Speaking of Bill (see below) it seems he had some things to say about the Fox News trademark suit against Al Franken:
But that success has caused an incredible amount of anger among some in the elite media and among some liberal ideologues. And their attacks on us have now resulted in legal issues, such as trademark infringement and defamation.
The main point here is that trying to hurt a business or a person because you disagree with what they say is simply unacceptable in America. And that message has been sent by FOX. There's a principle in play. Vigorous debate is embraced by us, but smear campaigns will be confronted. It is simply a joke for The New York Times to editorialize that fabricated personal attacks are acceptable under the banner of satire.
Of course, this suit has nothing to do with defamation. Bill O'Reilly is simply too chicken to try a defamation suit because he knows he would be laughed out of court. Please feel free to visit "O'Reilly-Sucks.com" to see exactly why he would lose such a suit.
Well it looks as if this suit against Al Franken just gets more and more interesting. Now it seems that the whole reason Fox News is suing Franken is because of Bill O'Reilly. At least according to Matt Druge:
FOX NEWS star Bill O'Reilly lobbied his network to file suit against author Al Franken and his upcoming book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," top sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
"For Bill, above all other things, this was a matter of honor and support," a top source explained from New York.
In his book, Franken directly challenges O'Reilly on his journalistic record and aggressively accuses cable's top-rated host of exaggeration, padding of his resume and other claims.
"He is not going to sit by and let Franken smear the hell out of him," a top FOX source said.
The lawsuit does not directly address the content of the book on charges of libel, rather it claims Fox has trademarked "Fair and Balanced" to describe its news coverage and that Mr. Franken's use of the phrase would "blur and tarnish" it.
It seems as if Mr. Chicken can't sue Franken for libel (since truth is an absolute defense) so instead he gets his bosses to bring a trademark suit that is just as stupid. So stupid in fact that the only thing they have accomplished so far is sending Franken's book to a Number 1 spot on Amazon.com. Does it get any better than this?
Of course, Bill is still seething about the smack down that Franken delivered at the Book TV fair. You might remember seeing it on C-Span last month (you can see it in all it's glory here if you missed it the first time). Needless to say Bill was hot that day and it seems that his anger has hardly cooled at all. See Bill is so used to being able to control his "guests" on his program (by shouting over them or failing that, cutting their mike) that when he realized that Franken was actually scoring points and there was nothing he could do, he pretty much lost it. Not that seeing Bill red-faced and screaming is all that rare a sight.
I have to admit I am greatly amused by this newest development. Anything that makes Bill mad can only be good.
Well it looks as if Al Franken does not mind being sued by Fox News, but he does threatened a countersuit:
In its court papers, Fox described the author and liberal commentator as "neither a journalist nor a television news personality. He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable. His views lack any serious depth or insight."
Fox alleged that Franken was "either intoxicated or deranged" when he attacked the network and conservative host Bill O'Reilly at an April press correspondents dinner. The lawsuit also says that Franken has been described as "increasingly unfunny."
"As far as the personal attacks go," Franken responded, "when I read `intoxicated or deranged' and `shrill and unstable' in their complaint, I thought for a moment I was a Fox commentator.
"And by the way, a few months ago, I trademarked the word `funny.' So when Fox calls me `unfunny,' they're violating my trademark. I am seriously considering a countersuit."
After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone. An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." This container provides the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity and is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.
The Aramaic words etched on the box’s side show a cursive form of writing used only from about 10 to 70 A.D., according to noted paleographer André Lemaire of the École Pratique des Hautes Études (popularly known as the Sorbonne University) in Paris, who verified the inscription’s authenticity. The ossuary has been dated to approximately 63 A.D. Lemaire details his full investigation in the November/December 2002 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, the leading popular publication in its field.
This is important to believers because there is no mention of Jesus in contemporary historical writings. This seemed to be the first evidence that Jesus existed outside of the bible. And please spare me the old saw about Flavius Josephus mentioning Jesus in his work "Antiquities of the Jews." There are good reasons to believe that the entire passage about Jesus is in fact a late addition by Christian writers.
At the time I wrote about the ossuary box I urged caution:
We have no idea if they are talking about the Jesus, or just some other Jesus. The inscription on the box, which is in the Aramaic language, reads: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." The problem is that none of these names were in rare use at the time. all three were popular names. Andre Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions at France's Practical School of Higher Studies estimates that only 20 James in Jerusalem during that era would have had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus. However, I have not seen the method he used to come up with this number and it seems unlikely to me that Lemaire could have been this accurate. Only 20 James?
Turns out I was right. The ossuary box turns out to be a complete hoax:
A stone box touted as the oldest archaeological evidence of Jesus is, in fact, a well-crafted fake, Israeli archaeological experts say.
The box, an object known as an ossuary, was said to have contained the bones of Jesus' brother James.
Carved on one side is an inscription in the ancient language of Aramaic bearing the legend: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
Officials with Israel's Antiques Authority announced Wednesday that while the box may date from the correct era, the inscription is a forgery added at a much later date.
"The inscription appears new, written in modernity by someone attempting to reproduce ancient written characters," the officials said in the statement.
They said that a panel of archeological experts had agreed unanimously with the findings.
Of course Oded Golan, the owner of the box disagrees:
"I am certain the ossuary is real, I am certain that the committee is wrong regarding its conclusions," he said.
Golan had earlier said he had problems with the committee and its methods of investigation saying they had "preconceived notions."
He said he had bought the ossuary in the mid-1970s from a dealer in the Old City of Jerusalem for about $200, but he was unable to remember the dealer's name.
Oh yah, I know that when I buy something that might be the most important historical find of the century I always forget who I bought it from.
It is that type of self-serving crap that makes me wonder if Mr. Golan did not take part in (or at least have a guilty knowledge of) the hoax.
Just to let you know, I am still on vacation. I am home but I had not intended to post anything till tomorrow. But this came up and it was just too good to resist.
As you might know, Fox News is suing Al Franken for the use of "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his new book "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" . The arguement is that Fox has trademarked "Fair and Balanced" to describe its news coverage and that Mr. Franken's use of the phrase would "blur and tarnish" it. They are actually trying to get an injunction against Al to prevent the selling of his book.
This is an incredible stand for a news organization to take...well any news organization other than Fox. So in a show of support of Al's right to use the words "Fair and Balanced" any damn way he chooses, I am re-introducing "A Skeptical Blog - Fair and Balanced".
I know I'm rather late posting today, and I know it ain't much, but I have come down with the mother of all stomach flues. It is horrible and because I am a nice guy I will spare you the graphic details.
But I did want to point out three new links on the blogroll. I have read a bit from each, all three have things to recommend them, but I am so sick I can't remember what they are. If I feel better I am off for a mini-vacation. So no posts tomorrow. Look for me next week.
So here we are at the end. Been one hell of a ride.
When I first started this I said I would save the first part of Bomford's ridiculous paper for the last. I wanted readers to get a sense of just what type of arguments he was going to present before talking about his "stereotypes".
Bomford claims that his opponents will accuse him of being a homophobe, of being a religious nut, and of trying to impose his morality upon the rest of us. Let's take a closer look at each eh?
Our Opponent is attempting to impose his morality on the rest of us. A simple response to this is that all law is based on morality. A very basic example is Western Law penalizing polygamy, bigamy, adultery etc. It could be argued that the natural state of a male is polygamous. However we as a society have decided that it is in the best interest of our children and the family to restrict that impulse. Western restrictions on bribes and gratuities are also based on moral assumptions as are some of our laws relating to theft. The list goes on but in the case of the sexual addiction referred to as the "Gay Lifestyle" a moral decision is not necessary as I will demonstrate during this discussion.
Unfortunately for Jim, he demonstrated nothing of the sort.
It seems to me that this is an argument for keeping sodomy laws and preventing gay marriage. I don't know what he hoped to prove by bringing up polygamy and bigamy, such laws are most certainly built upon our culture. Adding adultery is simply dumb, as far as I know there are no laws against adultery anywhere in the United States, or if there is, they are not being enforced. Short of empty arguments like "It protects our children and the family" there is no logical reason to pass laws preventing plural marriages. It is simply a matter of culture taste. Can someone please tell me how preventing three (or four or more) people living as a family destroys a family? I mean really, I would like to know. There are cultures in this world that allow plural marriages and I don't see them collapsing in an immoral swamp. I have a friend from Nigeria that came from a household with more than one wife (his mom was the second wife). His family ties seemed to be quite strong. Now I live with two women. I am not married to both just the one. I can't imagine why I would want to marry both of them, life has enough friction without that. Don't get me wrong, I love our roommate, she is part of our family, but holy lord, being married to both her and my wife? It is hard enough just remaining friends! However, I recognize this as a matter of personal taste and I don't think my taste should rule the world.
Trying to compare such laws to laws against homosexuality makes even less sense. I tend to think that laws against homosexuality have a large "This makes me personally uncomfortable" factor that tends to rise above moral consideration, a problem that bigamy and polygamy totally lack. I have never understood this, as long as it is not happening in my bed, why should I care, but I have heard enough homophobic screeds to recognize that this feeling exists.
Our Opponent is a religious nut or a Bible thumper. I am not an active member of any religious organization. Any religious belief that I might hold would be personal and based on faith not fact. It is counter productive to use a metaphysical argument to support a political discussion. Metaphysics is based on opinion and by its very nature can not lead one to an empirical conclusion. In this context and for this discussion my religious beliefs are irrelevant.
I might have taken this seriously had I not already been introduced to Jim Bomford over his "This is a Christian Nation" crap, as it is it only makes me laugh. Go and read the article. See how trusting Bomford is towards Wall Builder founder David Barton. Bomford uses a whole bunch of quotes from Barton that Barton later had to eat. It may very well be that Jim Bomford is not an active member of any religion but that hardly means he is not religious. Obviously he is religious enough to think this a nation built upon Christianity!
Our opponent is a "Homophobe". I have lost three friends to AIDS, two were Homosexual Addicts one was normal. Of the two men who were addicts one was a very good friend and I was Godfather for one of the children of the normal man. It was a horrible way to die suffering the pain of Kaposi’s sarcoma or the suffocation of Pneumocystis Carnii Pneumonia. Even more tragic is the fact that one of the addicts was considering treatment for his affliction when in 1973 the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations under pressure from several small sexual addicts groups changed their opinion that Homosexuality was a mental illness. He did not have to die. A Homophobe would never have nor be concerned about such friends.
Oh please. This is nothing more than the cry of "I can't be racist because some of my best friends are black." If Bomford really has gay friends, then they certainly don't have to waste any time looking for enemies.
Is Jim Bomford a homophobe? I think his paper speaks for itself. This was not some attempt to articulate problems in the gay community, this was a screed to convince people that gays are scary, that they are sick in the head, sick in the body, and an absolute danger to everyone around them. He certainly had no problem bringing up the Paul Cameron study and I don't know anyone on the planet that's more homophobic than Paul. Bomford spewed a lot of "facts" that were nothing of the sort, he accepted unquestionably any statement that made homosexuals look bad (and created a few himself), and he certainly made no effort to find out if such "facts" were right. He makes many assertions that are slanderous towards the gay community (such as there were attempts made by gay men to infect female prostitutes with AIDS, or that gays are nothing more than pedophiles trying to change the law to make it easier to molest your kids) and he does nothing to back them up. He tries to equate homosexual behavior with sexual addiction, not because it is a scientific stance, but because he personally believes this to be so. Jim had no problem misquoting study after study, or allowing others to misquote with no effort on his part to find out if such quotes are true, and in the end is that not just as bad?
Webster defines homophobia as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" That Bomford fears homosexuals should be without question, I mean, what is his paper but a plea to "be afraid, be very very afraid"? As we can see from these postings, Jim's fear of homosexuals is certainly not rational. It is built upon cooked stats, misquoted and misunderstood scientific papers, deliberate ignorance of what science really says on the subject, and a whole lot of simple belief. Since Jim "chooses" to believe such nonsense, nonsense that can easily be proven to be wrong, I can't see how anyone can call it rational.
If Jim is really being rational then it should be no problem for him to point out one study that claims that homosexual behavior is the result of sexual addiction. It should be no problem for him to point out one study that proves that bacterial resistance to antibiotics are caused by homosexual abuse of antibiotics. It should be no problem for him to point out some method where homosexuals attempted to infect prostitutes with AIDS. It should be no problem to point out a study where AIDS is linked with MDR TB. It should be no problem for him to point to one study that shows kids are more likely to be molested by homosexuals than heterosexuals. Hell I could go on and on. I hope I have made my point.
If homophobia is really an irrational fear, then I think there is little doubt that Jim Bomford is a homophobe.
Some of you might be wondering why I took so much time (and put up with so much hassle) to deal with a paper that most rational people would not have spent five minutes reading, much less trying to answer. It is because I believe this is but a glimpse of the future. The fact is gay men and women are becoming more and more accepted in our society (and I say it's about time). The Supreme Court ruling ending sodomy laws have scared a lot of people, especially in the religious right community. More and more people are simply not accepting the argument "It against the bible". Bomford dimly recognizes this which is why he goes out of his way to deny his paper is based on religious considerations. I also recognize that the religious right usually has no problem twisting and tearing facts as they try to convince people that their morality is the only morality. Hell just look at the nonsense that Creationist have been dumping on Evolution all these years.
Be that as it may, the next big drive will be to deny the civil rights that go along with civil unions to homosexuals. All you have to do is look at the smear campaign leveled against Reverend Gene Robinson in his quest to be the first openly gay bishop to see the tactics that people like Bomford are willing to engage in to deny civil rights to a segment of our society. I can't tell you how happy I am that the bishops of the Episcopal dismissed all charges against Rev. Robinson and I congratulate him on his new bishophood (is that even a word?).
While I am at it I want to send a special thanks to Greg Lake of "Radio Free Volusia" for his permission to use his radio broadcast. He didn't have to, being that we are on opposite sides of the political fence and it was damn nice of him to do so. I can't believe that I have not linked to the stream of his program so allow me to do so now. You can hear the show by clicking here or on the words "Radio Free Volusia". I have listened to a few shows now and I recommend it. It is not your regular right-wing shout-fest.
So, at last I am done. I hope that in the future this becomes a resource for those having to answer such silly charges as we have seen from the pen of Jim Bomford.
When I called "Radio Free Volusia", I was struck by Bomford's total inability to actually name a study. Most of the assertions that he made, he did not bother to back up (such as homosexuality being an addiction or homosexual abuse of antibiotics being the cause of supergerms). When he does bother to refer to a study, the best he did was claim that it was done by someone, somewhere and you could look it up on the Internet.
For example here he claims that 73 percent of gay men have had sexual encounters with boys 16 years of age and younger. We now know that this is the statistic from "The Gay Report" and the "self-described homosexual" is Karla Jay. I can't help but note that in the middle of his cite, he actually changes the statistic to make it sound more alarming. He drops the 19 and goes with "16 years or younger"(to find out the real story behind this claim click here).
In the United States, HIV-related death has the greatest impact on young and middle-aged adults, particularly racial and ethnic minorities. In 1999, HIV was the fifth leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 25 and 44. Among African American men in this age group, HIV infection has been the leading cause of death since 1991. In 1999, among black women 25-44 years old, HIV infection was the third leading cause of death. Many of these young adults likely were infected in their teens and twenties. It has been estimated that at least half of all new HIV infections in the United States are among people under 25, and the majority of young people are infected sexually (Rosenberg PS, Biggar RJ, Goedert JJ. Declining age at HIV infection in the United States [letter]. New Engl J Med 1994;330:789-90).
Unfortunately for Bomford's theory that homosexuals are infecting the youth of the nation:
Scientists believe that cases of HIV infection diagnosed among 13- to 24-year-olds are indicative of overall trends in HIV incidence (the number of new infections in a given time period, usually a year) because this age group has more recently initiated high-risk behaviors. Females made up nearly half (47%) of HIV cases in this age group reported from the 34 areas with confidential HIV reporting for adults and adolescents in 2000 - and in young people between the ages of 13 and 19, a much greater proportion of HIV infections was reported among females (61%) than among males (39%). Cumulatively, young African Americans are most heavily affected, accounting for 56% of all HIV cases ever reported among 13- to 24-year-olds in these 34 areas.
Got that? The greatest increase for young people between the ages of 13 and 19 are among females.
You can hear my call by clicking here. You can see that Bomford gave me a whole list of studies. What he hoped to prove is beyond me, other than "The Journal of Homosexuality" did indeed print studies about pedophilia.
The highly acclaimed Journal of Homosexuality is devoted to scholarly research on homosexuality, including sexual practices and gender roles and their cultural, historical, interpersonal, and modern social contexts. In addition to research on human sexuality, articles in the journal also explore the political, social, and moral implications of research on human sexuality. Unique perspectives from the disciplines of law, history, and the humanities broaden the scope of the journal even more.
Specifically, the Journal of Homosexuality has the following goals:
to serve the allied disciplinary and professional groups represented by anthropology, art, history, the law, literature, philosophy, politics, religion, and sociology, as well as basic research in the biological sciences, medicine, psychiatry, and psychology
to serve as a forum for both essentialist and social constructionist views of homosexuality
to serve as the scholarly source of materials for research and educational programs dealing with homosexuality, particularly lesbian and gay studies programs
to serve as a vehicle for the dissemination of research on homosexuality throughout the world
to confront homophobia through the encouragement of scholarly inquiry and the dissemination of sound research.
One thing I note is that no where does it claim that "The Journal of Homosexuality" is the official spokes-magazine for the entire homosexual community. It seems that it is a scholarly journal that explores human sexuality with special emphasis on homosexuality. Thus is should come as no surprise that they had an issue devoted to pedophilia. Does Bomford recommend we do no research on pedophilia?
The issue in question was Volume: 20 Issue: 1/2 "Male Intergenerational Intimacy - Historical Socio-Psychological and Legal Perspective" (warning .pdf file) and two of the studies came from that issue, "The Main Thing is Being Wanted - Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children" and "Boy Lovers and Their Influences on Boys - Distorted Research and Anecdotal Observations". This is an old issue and I could not get the abstracts, just a table of contents. However, I am sure that none of them link pedophilia to homosexuality.
And therein lies the rub. The only reason that Jim Bomford brought up this issue of the Journal was a weak attempt to link pedophilia to homosexuality. Sorry Jim, but there simply is no link.
I had better luck with "The Pattern of Sexual Politics - Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia" by Harris Murken. I have to admit this was an interesting article. Murken contrasts the civil rights movement of feminist and gays with emerging attempts of civil rights for pedophile. However, this paper in no way condones pedophilia, nor does it link it to homosexuality.
This article will develop a model of sexual politics by discussing the struggles over feminism and homosexuality, and then use the model to clarify the current political situation of pedophiles. Though the issues have shifted from the new woman, sodomy and masturbation in the early part of the century to current concerns with promiscuity, homosexuality and pedophilia, the general patterns of sexual politics have remained remarkably stable. The politics of sex differs from normal interest group politics because of the intense feelings and the high visibility of the issues, and differs from racial or ethnic politics both because of normative issues and because open identity with a sexually disadvantaged group is largely a matter of choice. Sexual issues, together with racial controversies and anti-subversive activities, have been the major ones that have caused a suspension or diminution of constitutional rules and of normal political and Bill of Rights protections. They affect the way millions live, have led to the development of new political organizations, often involve significant amounts of money, and have generated a large body of law.[4] Additionally, conflicts over sexual/cultural issues currently underlie many of the disputes over more traditional political issues, making compromise harder and generating a great deal of rancor.
I could find no study called "Phases of Sexual Strategy". Needless to say Bomford's claim that the APA removed pedophilia from the DSM is simply wrong.
Update:
I managed to find the study in the International Journal of Epidemiology that Bomford was probably referring to when he claimed that the average life span of the homosexual was "17 to 30 years* depending on where he lives". You can hear him make a different claim on the radio show here. The tip off was when he said it was a Canadian study. The study is "Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men." and once again Bomford reads it wrong:
Objective: To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men.
Methods: Vital statistics data were obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992. Three scenarios were utilized with assumed proportions of gay and bisexual men of 3%, 6% and 9% among the male population age 20 years. For each scenario, non-HIV deaths were distributed according to the assumed proportion of the total population (3%, 6% or 9%) but 95% of HIV deaths were distributed to gay and bisexual men as this is the proportion of AIDS cases in gay and bisexual men in this centre. The main outcome measures of interest were age-specific patterns of death, life expectancy and life expectancy lost due to HIV/AIDS at exact age 20 years, and the probability of living from age 20 to 65 years.
Results: Estimates of the mid-period gay and bisexual population ranged from 5406 to 16,219 for the three scenarios, and total deaths in these men from 953 to 1703. Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men aged 30-44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men. The probability of living from age 20 to 65 years for gay and bisexual men ranged from 32% for the 3% scenario, to 59% for the 9% scenario. These figures were considerably lower than for all men where the probability of living from 20 to 65 was 78%.
Conclusion: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.
So as we can see, the only gay men this study refers to are those in "this urban centre". I should not have to point out how wrong it is to try to use this study as indicative of all gay men everywhere. Just a small example, gay men in urban communities were more likely to contract AIDS than gay men in rural communities during the time period of the study.
I don't feel bad about missing it the first time since Bomford did not bother to include the name of the study, the issue, etc...etc...etc.
