$cientology on trial in France

France, as far as I know, has never accepted $cientology as a real religion. It’s one of the few things the French have over us in the U.S. But now France has taken the next step. They’re taking L. Ron Hubbard’s cult to court under the charge of “organized fraud.” And I just have to say, viva la France!!

I would love to see the U.S. government reveal they have the stones to do the same but we’re probably a while away from that happening. And we’ll probably never see it declared unconstitutional, as it was in Germany. But the case that triggered the trial in France is not remotely uncommon in any country where the CoS vampires roam:

The case centres on a complaint by a woman who says she was pressured into paying large sums of money after being offered a free personality test.

The church, which is fighting the charges, denies that any mental manipulation took place.

France regards Scientology as a sect, not a religion, and the organisation could be banned if it loses the case.

. . .

The woman at the centre of this case says she was approached by church members in Paris more than 10 years ago, and offered a free personality test. But, she says, she ended up spending 21,000 euros ($29,400, £18,400) on lessons, books and medicines she was told would cure her poor mental state.

Her lawyers are arguing that the church systematically seeks to make money by means of mental pressure and the use of scientifically dubious “cures”.

. . .

The church’s spokeswoman in France said it was being “hounded” by the French courts and that its members were facing persecution.

This is all textbook $cientology. They wave a free stress test in front of you and then rig the stress test to say no matter what that you’re too stressed (as I easily proved myself). Then they invite you to their center, where they continue to hammer into you like time share salesmen how screwed up you are and promise that their courses and “tech” can cure whatever ails ya for the low, low price of a few hundred dollars…and of course your soul for one billion years. Oops, sorry. That comes later after they push you to join the Sea Org. Arrrrrr!!! And then what follows is the increasingly pressure to gradually make the plan the focus of your entire life step by step. And along the way, come more and more classes and reading materals (all for a modest fee, of course). Then they convince you to get regularly audited, which charges a few hundred bucks a shot. But hey, it’s all to give you a more fulfilling life, right? So why not? Then eventually, they suggest you buy your own e-meter, which is only a few thousand dollars. And then maybe you should consider paying for courses to reach OT Level I, where you’ll learn to levitate objects with your mind. You want to levitate objects with your mind, right? And it goes on and on until you’ve spent more money than you have. Then $cientlogy offers you a chance to continue even though you’re out of money. You just have to move into their commune and work for them for a few cents a day as well as a room and board. Great deal, huh?

Anyway, to be fair, I think the woman suing $cientology’s really did get to the bottom of what was causing her stress, only it just turned out to be $cientology…and it was anything other than free.

more about “Scientology on trial in France for or…“, posted with vodpod

Game Theory correctly predicts evolutionary path in ravens

Okay, this is really cool. While Game Theory is usually applied to economics, scientists have now successfully used Game Theory to predict a foraging strategy for ravens, which was then later observed in actual ravens in the wild.

Game theory analyzes how people (or animals) act in situations where an individual’s success depends on both his own decisions and those of others. In 2002 Sasha Dall, a mathematical ecologist at the University of Exeter in England, used a game theory model to explain why young ravens scout for carrion alone but then recruit other birds to join the feast. This apparently altruistic behavior is evolutionarily sensible, he found, because it helps the scout fight off territorial adults and secure dominance over recruits.

Dall’s model predicted another successful strategy, one that had never been observed in ravens: gang foraging, in which a large group of birds scavenge together.

. . .

Charles Darwin noticed that animal teamwork could make evolutionary sense for groups, but Wright’s research shows that joint efforts can pay off even in situations that emphasize the role of individual success. “Ravens are smart and selfish,” Wright says, “but there’s a lot more stability to cooperation.”

This is a perfect illustration of why creationism is full of shit. Creationists would have us believe that evolution is just some religious dogma designed by scientists to deny god while “intelligent design” is real science. But one of the main reasons ID is not real science is that it has no application. At worst, it makes no specific predictions about what we would expect to find in nature if it were true because the alleged “designer” could design things however it pleased (often the creationists’ fall back position when design flaws are pointed out), and at best, it makes vague predictions that can’t be falsified. Whereas real science must have practical application. It’s based not off of poetic scripture but on real observations and making specific predictions based off of those observations that can be tested.

Before the discovery of evolution, creationism may very well have seemed plausible enough even though there was no positive evidence to support it, but after Darwin’s findings, quote the raven, never more.

This week in medical quackery

Now I’ve done several blogs on the Daniel Hauser case, so I’m not going to discuss that here. And I also did one blog on the Lupron scandal, but David Gorski’s “friend” Orac did a number of pieces on it this week that I’d like to draw people’s attention to here, here, and here. The last of these also cites legendy anti-vaccinationist Dan Olmsted, which also reminds me that I don’t think I got around to blogging Jenny McCarthy’s latest hypocrisy. A month or so ago, Jenny “I hate toxins” McCarthy publicly expressed her love of botox, aka botulism, aka Botulinum toxin, aka the most dangerous toxin on the planet (not that there aren’t some real medicinal uses for it, which there are).

But now she publicly expressed her love of bleaching her hair:

“I guess this is what one might call a hypocrite. I talk about staying away from toxins, yet I bleach the hell out of my hair every month. It’s tough to avoid everything that is not good for you. Yes, I have given up a lot so far, but I don’t think I can ever let people see me with my original haircolor. Yuck. My hairdresser had just told me a couple of grays were seen. WHAT?!! Come on. I finally just got rid of my adult acne! Will my armpit hair turn gray one day too?”

And then finally there’s the  Madeleine Neumann case. Madeleine was an 11-year-old girl died of diabetic ketoacidosis because her parents chose prayer over real medicine, not unlike the almost inevitable fate of Daniel Hauser. But that was a year ago. The DA chose to prosecute the parents for second-degree reckless homicide, it went to trial, and now this week the parents were found guilty. Of course nothing will bring their daughter back but we can only hope that this ruling will serve as a lesson to other parents who put their own wacky beliefs above hard science. And in doing so, maybe some will be wiser for it and lives will be saved.

Then although this isn’t about quackery, Mark Hoofnagle from the Denialist blog wrote about the propaganda against universal healthcare versus the reality.

Letter to the Editor 5.22.09

Once again, one of my letters to the editor has been published in my local newspaper. And as I have in the past, I’ll post both my original version of the letter followed by the edited published version.

So first, here’s the original:

In “Psychic pushes case for life after death” (Better Living, May 14), I was amazed by David J. Spatz’s credulity regarding the claims of so-called psychic medium James Van Praagh. There’s nothing remarkable or even mysterious about this talking to the dead act that such self-proclaimed psychics like Van Praagh and John Edward perform .Legendary magician Harry Houdini regularly debunked these scams almost a century ago and today anyone can learn to do them themselves by reading books like “Flim Flam” by James Randi, former professional psychic M. Lamar Keene’s tell-all “The Psychic Mafia,” the internet, or any decent book on mentalism.

Van Praagh is an actor doing simple magic tricks and it’s unfortunate that he fraudulently leads people to believe he has true supernatural abilities. It’s also criminal, considering he actually charges people lots of money to see him communicate with the dead when he’s really just mostly doing a kind of targeted guessing game known as “cold reading” that allows the reader to acquire information about an individual from the individual themselves and then feeding it back to them, while giving the illusion of having conjured up personal information the reader couldn’t have known.

I would love to see The Record create a kind of consumer reports column that properly investigates and cracks down on these types of conmen bilking the public under the guise of the supernatural. These days many admitted non-psychics have proven capable of performing Van Praagh’s entire repertoire just as convincingly as Van Praagh himself, which suggests that if Van Praagh really is the genuine article, then he’s doing it the hard way.

And now here’s the slightly weaker published version:

Regarding “Psychic pushes case for life after death” (Better Living, Page F-6, May 14):

I was amazed by David J. Spatz’s credulity regarding the claims of so-called psychic medium James Van Praagh. There’s nothing remarkable or even mysterious about this talking to the dead act that such self-proclaimed psychics like Van Praagh and John Edward perform. Legendary magician Harry Houdini regularly debunked these scams almost a century ago. And today anyone can learn to do them themselves by reading books like “Flim Flam” by James Randi, former professional psychic M. Lamar Keene’s tell-all “The Psychic Mafia,” or any decent book on mentalism.

Van Praagh is an actor doing simple magic tricks, and it’s unfortunate that he leads people to believe he has true supernatural abilities. It’s also questionable behavior, considering he actually charges people lots of money to see him communicate with the dead when he’s really just mostly doing a kind of targeted guessing game known as “cold reading.” It is an act that allows the reader to acquire information about individuals from the individual themselves and then feed it back to them, while giving the illusion of having conjured up personal information the reader couldn’t have known.

I would love to see The Record create a kind of consumer reports column that properly investigates and cracks down on these types of schemers bilking the public under the guise of the supernatural. These days many admitted non-psychics have proven capable of performing Van Praagh’s entire repertoire just as convincingly as Van Praagh himself, which suggests that if Van Praagh really is the genuine article, then he’s doing it the hard way.

9 Year Old Organizes Gay Rights Rally

Now some have argued that this kid’s just brainwashed but I disagree. This kid is 9 years old, which means that while he’s probably not old enough to understand the full implications of his position, he’s certainly old enough to understand the basic rules of fairness in a society and legitimately be passionate about promoting social justice and making the world I better place. I know I was at his age. I just didn’t have the kind of encouragement he has to really persue it then.

Now it’d be a really brilliant PR move for Obama if he came to this kid’s rally or specifically responded to him on camera. The news media would eat that up and Charlie Gibson might name Ethan his person of the week.

Fellow New World Order of Masonic Illuminati, we’re SCREWED!

Liberty “University” brings about the end times to their Democratic Party Club

Jerry Falwell’s Liberty “University” is well known for its lack of academic standards and for teaching flat-out lies. After a student from Liberty U asked Richard Dawkins a deeply idiotic question, Dawkins famously advised them to abandon Liberty U for a real university.

Well the latest news from that school is that they’ve official suspended their Democratic Party Club. Now knowing Liberty U, I’m just shocked that they even had a Democratic Party Club. Their reason for suspending it is because the “University” decided that the Democratic Party just goes against the school’s conservative Christian values.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, expressed his outrage:

“For Liberty University to deprive the College Democrats of the same opportunity as College Republicans . . . violates that fundamental principle of fairness and teaches the students the wrong message,” Kaine said.

So not only does Liberty “University” teach lies to their students and push their students to evangelize (as is revealed in Kevin Roose’s book), but they also dictate the politics of their students. And there are even more absurd implications to this that are discussed here.

And Rachel Maddow covers the story here:

The atheist bus campaign hits Chicago!

Chicago atheists are actually going with an athvertising slogan I haven’t seen before:

It’s not my favorite but it’s not bad. It should definitely cause people to do some double takes and hopefully will get people thinking.

PZ Myers responds to Charlotte Allen’s anti-atheist bigoted rant

Several days ago, Charlotte Allen wrote a vitriolic attack against atheists that was published in the LA Times. It seems she’s no fan of the atheist and she wants everyone to know it. Well, after many atheists wrote responses, PZ Myers decided to jump into the ring too, and it is superb. I particularly like his opening:

Charlotte Allen is very, very angry with us atheists — that’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from her furious broadside in The Times on May 17. She can’t stand us; we’re unpopular; we’re a problem. What, exactly, is the greatest crime of modern atheists?

We’re boring.

I can’t actually argue with that. It’s true. We’re all just ordinary people — your neighbors, your friends, your relatives. I know atheists who are accountants, real estate agents, schoolteachers, lawyers, soldiers, journalists, even ministers (but don’t tell their congregations!). Our leading lights are college professors, scientists, philosophers, theologians and other such pedantic, scholarly riffraff. For entertainment, they read books, and if they want to do something ambitious and dramatic, they write books. I’m one of them, so trust me, I know — we don’t exactly live the James Bond lifestyle. Calling us boring is a fair cop.

But still — why would anyone get angry about that?

PZ definitely hits all the most important points and does so in good humor. So I’d just like to say, great job PZ!

Catholics downplaying abuse

Yesterday, I blogged about the awful findings of a 9-year-investigation into Catholic reform school in Ireland involving decades of child abuse and cover-ups. Well now Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is playing apologist by making excuses for the rapists because they happen to belong to his gang. It’s truly obscene and goes way beyond the pale, revealing what a horrible human being Bill Donohue really is. Instead of condemning decades of atrocities, he condemns the media for, as he claims, blowing this scandal out of proportion:

Reuters is reporting that “Irish Priests Beat, Raped Children,” yet the report does not justify this wild and irresponsible claim. Four types of abuse are noted: physical, sexual, neglect and emotional. Physical abuse includes “being kicked”; neglect includes “inadequate heating”; and emotional abuse includes “lack of attachment and affection.” Not nice, to be sure, but hardly draconian, especially given the time line: fully 82 percent of the incidents took place before 1970. As the New York Times noted, “many of them [are] now more than 70 years old.” And quite frankly, corporal punishment was not exactly unknown in many homes during these times, and this is doubly true when dealing with miscreants.

Regarding sexual abuse, “kissing,” and “non-contact including voyeurism” (e.g., what it labels as “inappropriate sexual talk”) make the grade as constituting sexual abuse. Moreover, one-third of the cases involved “inappropriate fondling and contact.” None of this is defensible, but none of it qualifies as rape. Rape, on the other hand, constituted 12 percent of the cases. As for the charge that “Irish Priests” were responsible, some of the abuse was carried out by lay persons, much of it was done by Brothers, and about 12 percent of the abusers were priests (most of whom were not rapists).

The Irish report suffers from conflating minor instances of abuse with serious ones, thus demeaning the latter. When most people hear of the term abuse, they do not think about being slapped, being chilly, being ignored or, for that matter, having someone stare at you in the shower. They think about rape.

By cheapening rape, the report demeans the big victims. But, of course, there is a huge market for such distortions, especially when the accused is the Catholic Church.

What’s just completely disgraceful is how Donohue treats decades of covered up abuse as if these are just a few widely spaced, isolated incidents that could happen anywhere. Now given Donohue’s Catholicism, I can certainly understand how he could think child abuse is a regular occurrance. But for those of us who aren’t sexual deviants, this is not routine and is not exceptable. . .EVER! Believe it or not, Bill, there are actually reform schools that have no history of abusing children AT ALL!

Bill Donohue reveals his true character here by opting to condemn the messengers while making excuses for the abusers. And why does he make these excuses? Because they’re Catholics like him. Somehow I doubt Donohue would be so quick to defend Muslim abusers. Any conpassionate, decent human being who happens to be Catholic would condemn the abusers as betraying everything Catholics stand for. Bill, on the other hand, can’t seem to muster the outrage.

Possibly the most absurd argument Donohue makes here is the one where he passionately declares how most of the rape that we now know was deliberately covered up took place way back before 1970. Ohhhh! That’s different. As everyone knows, rape becomes more and more acceptable the further back in time you go. Give me a break! Who gives a shit when the rape occurred? What’s important is that it happened and that it was covered up, which only ensured that it would happen again. And we now know for a fact that the rape did continue for many, many years.

Donohue even arguably blames the victims themselves when he drops the line:

More than 30,000 children, most of them delinquents, passed through one or more of Ireland’s Catholic-run institutions from the 1920s through the 1980s.

I can’t even fathom why he’d feel the need to even include the part that says “most of them delinquents” if not to suggest they somehow brought this on themselves or somehow deserved it. If anyone else can think of an alternative theory as to why he includes this, I’d really love to hear it.

And sadly, Donohue isn’t the only Catholic nutcase who’s response to these findings is disgraceful. The new head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Archbishop Vincent Nichol had the audacity to praise the abusers’ “courage” to “face these facts from their past, which instinctively and quite naturally they’d rather not look at.” This sort of backwards thinking reminds me of Rabbi Avi Shafran, who in a single column criticized Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger for being not as heroic as the media hype while praising Bernard Madoff for his “courage” for owning up to his crimes.

And to further illustrate how misplaced Archbishop Vincent Nichol’s priorities are when it comes to abuse, he along with his predecessor “joint offensive yesterday against atheists and secular society,” according to this aptly titled Times Online article, “Archbishops of Westminster attacks atheism but says nothing on child abuse.” Huh? Nichols views myself and Richard Dawkins as worse sinners than than repeated child rapists.

Here’s my favorite of the many quotes the article posted of people outraged by Nichol’s cavalier position on the abuse:

Patrick Walsh said: “Rubbish is too kind a word for what the Archbishop has said . . . It is the verbiage of unreason, and it leaves me cold. What the Archbishop really has to do is take a long hard look at the character and nature of the people he is talking about and ask himself if they are capable of being good.”

Though to be fair, Nichols is better than many other Roman Catholic leaders in just one way:

Despite his controversial comments, Archbishop Nichols was one of the few Roman Catholic leaders to say that the perpetrators, who have been granted anonymity and may never be prosecuted, should be held to account.

The fact that the Catholic Church is still protecting these monsters instead of throwing them under the bus to prevent them from striking again even now is sobering news to say the least.