Saturday 13 December 2014

Music: My 5 favourite Albums of the Year!


Hello again, and apologies for the long absence. I've been otherwise occupied, as they say. Seriously though, things have been busy. I have a few things lined up, and hope to put up another post or two over the next few weeks. 

I wanted to record here my selections for favourite albums of 2014. My taste in music is rather limited - I tend to prefer 90's indie, emo and rock above anything else. A lot of it is a bit obscure. Sometimes I branch out into more mainstream stuff, though. 

The list is in no particular order, and I also list some close runners-up at the end. I have reviewed some of them more fully elsewhere and included excerpts of my comments here also. I rated each of the following five records as 5 stars.


---
Grant Nicholas - Yorktown Heights


Comments: 

Very impressed. This is an excellent record full of thoughful positivity, a bit of a departure from the heavy rock sound of early Feeder records, but you can still tell it has Grant's trademark touch. One of the best albums I've heard so far this year. Great to put on repeat as it has no real fillers or weak tracks. Highly recommended.

Favourite tracks: Robots, Vampires, Joan of Arc, Isolation

Buy Here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Yorktown-Heights-Grant-Nicholas/dp/B00KTQLEPA/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1418501398&sr=1-1&keywords=grant+nicholas

---
You Me At Six - Cavalier Youth


Comments: 

Punchy, thoughtful emo rock from one of the best current British bands in my opinion.

Favourite tracks: Lived A Lie, Fresh Start Fever, Forgive And Forget, Win Some Lose Some

Buy Here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cavalier-Youth-You-Me-Six/dp/B00GNGZGB8/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1418501493&sr=1-1&keywords=you+me+at+six

---
Honeyblood - Honeyblood


Comments: 

So cool, and destined to be a classic.

Honeyblood are Stina Tweeddale and Shona McVicar a female duo from Glasgow

This band have come out of nowhere for me as someone who doesn't keep up with the latest music much. I only heard about them by chance and was blown away by the awesome single "Killer Bangs". It is a major pop anthem. And if you like that, you'll love this.

Apart from this standout track, here I can detect elements of 90's American college rock amongst the punchy punk beats and classy singer songwriter sensibilities. Talk about crunchy guitars!

They've put together an eclectic and diverse range of songs with one thing in common : all are awesome. We have the mesmerically smooth flowing "Biro" to the chirpy, countrified "Bud" and sweet, heady "Joey" all the way through to the in-your-face, almost bile-fuelled "All Dragged Up" and "Super Rat".

And I haven't even mentioned how good "Choker" and "Fall Forever" are! There are no fillers here. Just a gorgeously crafted range of songs with some very clever, thoughtful lyrics ("No Spare Key", "Biro" in particular) giving a hugely impressive debut album, and an album of the year no doubt. They may just be the saviours of what I call awesome music! It's a brilliant record on many levels and highly recommended!

Favourite tracks: Fall Forever, Killer Bangs, Super Rat, Bud, Choker


---
Sister Sin - Black Lotus


Comments: 

Heavy, Epic and overall, pretty Sensational.

This is my favourite Sister Sin album yet. I've been a fan since the days of "Switchblade Serenade" and whilst this may not be their best record technically (depending on who you ask), with tracks of such forceful conviction, musical skill and vocal power, any rock fan would be missing out not to hear it at least a few times.

The first five tracks may be the finest openers I've heard on a record this year.

Every one of "Food for Worms", "Chaos Royale", "Au Revoir", "Desert Queen" and "Count Me Out" blast you off your feet, each a heavy rock anthem entirely of its own. Singer Liv Jagrell's vocals are simply awesome. Her ability to sound in-your-face and aggressive without actually resorting to screaming is remarkable.

Highly recommended.

Favourite tracks: Desert Queen, Chaos Royale, Food for Worms, Au Revoir

Buy Here: 

---

Die So Fluid - Opposites of Light


Comments: 

Hard rock with a classy edge. Catchy riffs, beautiful compositions, excellent lyrics and sweeping choruses make for an epic record.

Favourite tracks: Comets, Anubis, Carnival, Crime Scene, Transition


---

Other very good "4 Star" records from 2014, which I would also highly recommend:

---

First Aid Kit - Stay Gold




Taking Back Sunday - Happiness Is




Fear of Men - Loom




Shelley Segal - An Easy Escape




Embrace - Embrace





Sunday 12 October 2014

The Foodbabe, chemical illiteracy and The Chow Babe

The Foodbabe, chemical illiteracy and The Chow Babe


This is actually quite a detailed article which contains quite a bit of what I want to cover here. The writer starts off with displaying some pretty alarming chemophobia, but ends up with a slightly more considered perspective on how to view the chemical substances that are around us day in, day out. 
The misguided attempts of some activists who do not have sufficient understanding of chemistry or science to add anything to the debate are also mentioned.


Steven Novella from the excellent The Skeptic's Guide to  the Universe (SGU) wrote a very nice piece on how mistaken the Food Babe is in her quest to try and stop "harmful toxins" in processed foods from killing us all.

There is one major toxin that does untold times more damage than any amount of aspartame, gluten, sodium benzoate, sodium monoglutamate, or high fructose corn syrup you could ever reasonably eat. It's in drinks that most people consume every week, or even every day. 

Alcohol. Ethanol, to be precise. This flammable, harmful liquid is not suited to our metabolisms that are specifically designed to handle aqueous (water based) liquids, not non-aqueous solvents. The fact remains that anyone who drinks more  than probably about a unit of alcohol a week is getting way more "toxic" damage from that than all the artificial colours, flavours and preservatives they eat combined together. I say this because peer-reviewed scientific studies have found most of these artificial ingredients to be safe, and we see everyday in our hospitals the damage done by alcohol consumption. 

And yet, somehow alcohol gets a free pass. Probably because it's "natural"! Somehow it's more important whether something's natural than whether the data actually shows it's safe. So goes the naturalistic fallacy.

Hmm...as a chemist myself, the Food Babe's notion that any compound that contains an atom, species or functional group which is harmful in isolation, must be regarded as harmful in itself, is utter chemical illiteracy. Everything hangs on how the "harmful" species is when bonded. Or whether it is "free". The beauty of different types of bonding is that they can render certain groups inactive until the right conditions come along.

A couple of examples. An oft-quoted cure for heavy metals poisoning is the use of a chelating ligand such as sodium EDTA. (EDTA stands for ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid, this is the sodium salt to get the powder or solution form) to bind the heavy metal atom in a tight grip of nitrogen and oxygen lone pairs. The resulting complex contains heavy metals, and yet is harmless to the metabolism in the bloodstream. It can naturally pass out of the body without the heavy metal becoming dissociated into its harmful form. If you've had heavy metal poisoning you won't complain about the heavy metals still being there, if it's been deactivated.

Cyancobalamin molecules contain cyanide. Thing is, this molecule is also used in dietary supplements. It is a form of vitamin B12. VITAMIN.You know, those substances that tend to be somewhat vital. To try and reduce all this nuance down to the level of describing all chemicals containing potentially toxic constituents as "toxins" is very ignorant. I can't emphasise the number of intellectual shortcuts this person takes in reaching their conclusion. The ground these shortcuts take is so bumpy that it leaves the vehicle itself unsound upon reaching its destination.

There is a great parody page called The Chow Babe, I highly recommend it...


What Doctors Don't Tell You. 

It makes a mockery of other people's genuine attempts to inform the debate by carefully searching for the facts rather than just shouting off on what they've already decided is true. Outrageous.




Quack merchants like WDDTY seem to be insistent that I must be a "pro-vaccine pro-GMO shill and troll", highly paid by the likes of Monsanto. I'm going to own those accusations by liking and following these great Facebook pages:

https://www.facebook.com/GenMods4Monsanto

https://www.facebook.com/provaccineshills?fref=ts

It's apparent that WDDTY advocates think that anyone who disagrees with them MUST be getting paid by the gestalt entity that is Big Pharma/Monsanto. Yeah, those "cheques" really make a difference I can tell you.

Instead, can I ask if it could perhaps be the fact that the wooster quack logic of WDDTY is unscientific, casually committing many logical fallacies, and is full of cognitive errors?

No, because their opinions are "facts".

The Foodbabe's latest pet hate is GMOs. So I guess at some stage we'll have to over AGAIN all the evidence which shows they are perfectly safe. Oh well, until then...

Returning to football?

The Ched Evans debate

Just a quick thought on the Ched Evans debate.

It's all kicking off again as he is going to be released soon (I do hope you'll excuse that little pun of mine)!

If you wanna put yourself through the ordeal of reading about the case from 2012,  if you've not done so already, you can go here

The whole thing was one big, complicated mess.

There is now a campaign to get Evan's former club, Sheffield United FC, to not reinstate Evans. 

The BBC are covering the story here .

I hesitate to recommend this site as I suspect it to be highly biased in his favour. However it's not certain to me that it's completely untruthful. But there does seem to be some measure of rape apology on here. The most helpful thing of course would be to have a wide ranging debate on the social contexts of what constitutes true consent. A debate on how important it is to agree in a recorded form (written, audio or video) beforehand what is intended and expected. 

Evans' girlfriend Natasha Massey has supported him in returning.

You may be surprised to hear that I'm not supporting the campaign to influence Sheffield United. It's up to them what they do and they have to be as accountable as anyone else. I agree that Evans needs to be able to have a career again. It's unfortunate if he will simply be re-signing for the same team I suppose. I imagine though, that little will remain the same for him and he'll obviously have to re-prove his footballing skills. I don't think it necessarily sends out a message that's he's been "forgiven". To me the campaign seems to be a bit misplaced and reeks of the constant harassment that people who are wrongfully accused of crimes sometimes receive even if they are acquitted. This is not directly comparable of course, but Evans served his time and deserves a second chance, although it is very problematic if he doesn't understand what he did wrong.



On Moderate Islam

On moderate Islam

There is a superb article on the HuffPo by Ali A. Rizvi, from which I want to cover a few of the issues he discusses.

It's been knocking about quite a bit on podcasts and news sites recently, so I thought I'd mention the TV debate involving outspoken atheists Bill Maher and Sam Harris, and actor/director Ben Affleck.

Apart from agreeing on the God question, I don't agree with Maher on several issues, and actually tend to disagree with Harris about quite a bit, as I talked about in a previous post. However I think they're probably mostly right here - Affleck's arguments are completely unconvincing. 

Unsurprisingly, overly politically-correct sources like the Guardian have sided with Affleck on this issue,

If we are to believe Affleck, then there is simply no way to criticise the bad ideas of Islam. It's no wonder that Affleck was left floundering so badly when asked about the statistics of what Egyptian Muslims think about apostates (people who lose their Muslim faith). Many think that these apostates should be put to death. Let's not lie about this - any percentage siding with this would be bad. The figure of 90% was presented, which he unhelpfully suggested was "not representative".

WTF? It's just horrific!

The examples of "internal Muslim dissent" he gives, with moderate Muslims reforming from within, are exactly what we want of course, but all these examples do is explain exactly why we are right about Islam having inherent problems. People like Aryan Hirsi Ali and Malala Yousafzai have rebelled from the dogmatic views that were imposed on them, so of course they are going to fight the system. 

They're brave to do so, of course, but some emergent recalcitrance is hardly unexpected with what they face.

Our position is definitely not aligned with right wing racists on this issue, so it annoys me when people like Affleck insinuate that it is.

The Islam apologist Reza Azlan, whose views I find somewhat annoying, also weighs in here.


Actually, here's another great article showing why Affleck and Azlan are wrong:

This article, written by former Muslims and not just a white perspective, shows just how some journalists, scholars and political commentators need to wake up to the real doctrine of Islam as stated in the Koran, and call a spade a spade. They need to admit that taking the Koran with a pinch of salt is not only reasonable, but ultimately necessary to pave the way to peace and development in the Middle East, and resist the urges of extremists.

Alternatively, if you want to take an approach from another angle (and the point is this is not a cause everyone will believe in, even if they're non-religious, and is slightly offset from but still connected to that mentioned above), Malala Yousafzai is a great example of how it is possible to fight back against much of the bigotry shown by radical Islamists while still retaining your faith. She delivered a brilliant and moving speech after becoming the youngest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. 


What a charismatic and inspiring girl. Note how her "core value"(at least she repeatedly emphasises it) of wanting to become all she can goes directly against the grain of a patriarchal society, the likes of which are perpetuated by Islam. These societies expressly try and limit the role of women, outside being wives and bearing and raising children. Malala's is the type of reinterpretation of the doctrine that we need to see more often from within Islam itself. 

Tuesday 23 September 2014

What is it with all the critics of women's cricket? Actually, they may have a point, but it's not what you think it is

What is it with all the critics of women's cricket? Actually, they may have a point, but it's not what you think it is
I recently heard the Twitter meme "sexism isn't overly prominent in women's cricket" and felt I had to weigh in on this.
The following is a personal journey through the minefield of issues surrounding this subject. I reach a new low at one point, but then come out the other side with a fresh positive outlook and renewed determination to stand up for what's important to me.
Izzy Westbury, a former England player has written an article on the subject of sexism in cricket.
I tend to agree with her in general, but don't share her optimism for the further advancement of the game. This is an unfortunate, but I feel more intellectually honest, position for me to take.
After going to 2 England women games this summer, I really enjoyed it and would recommend it to anyone not obsessed with seeing constant sixes smashed everywhere.
What was perhaps most remarkable about the experience was the friendly atmosphere. I saw old ladies with a tear in their eye, reminiscing about how they played 30 or 40 years ago and remarking on how much the game has moved on. But all the women are really grateful just to be given the chance to play. I saw whole schools of young boys and girls absolutely enthralled, playing kwik cricket and loving it during the breaks. How dare anyone try and minimise these experiences and aspirations?
The women's game benefits from a few things which might not feature in the men's, including more local matches at smaller grounds; cheaper ticket prices; an (even more)family friendly, lovely and relaxed atmosphere; less boozing; emphasis on touch play and timing, and spin bowling; and no sledging. This gives it an appealing, old-fashioned feel of its own which may suit those who, like me, like to watch women play sport (sorry if it sounds sexist but I would be lying if I said I didn't) and lament the rise of power hitters over touch players. I like to focus on these features rather than trying to compare it directly to the men's game.
Going back to the article from earlier, when taken in context of women's cricket in England, the assertions that "sexism...isn't overly prominent" may be debatable. People like Izzy Westbury have a vested interest in arguing that sexism is everywhere, and whilst I highly respect her, I would take a different route to the same goal. The whole "sexism is the cause of all ills" is the prominent feminist narrative, and whilst I feel it does often have some merit, by using it as the go-to reason to explain all problems, many feminists are, I feel, missing out on what could be an even more compelling case for their own cause in this regard.
When taken in the context of women's cricket in Asia or the Middle East, the statement "sexism...isn't overly prominent" is blatantly false on every level. It is the very sexism built into these patriarchies themselves that cause many of the world's worst problems, the least of which would seem to be the low status of their women cricketers. However, I hope to show that there is more of a link there than one might think.
In this country though, I'm afraid I must insist that sexism is still a big part of sport in general, and cricket included. This is coming not so much from the media (Westbury's examples don't convince me: Sky have gone well out of their way to cover England Women; the ODIs had excellent live streaming; and the Test was on BBC radio) or the establishment (the ECB, however much you may or may not doubt their management of national cricket in general, have done a sterling job of promoting and advancing the England women's game); but instead the sexism comes from the keyboard warrior, the man who insists on commenting on every ECB or Sky Sports YouTube video or Facebook post with outrageous sexist slurs against professional sportswomen playing for their country. I challenge you to find many, if any, such videos or posts without highly detrimental comments posted by someone claiming to be a man.
Where I depart from Westbury's narrative is perhaps in my lack of optimism for the women's game beyond ODIs and IT20s. I was expecting much, maybe too much from women's cricket. With low attendences at men's county cricket and even a very disappointing turnout at the recent Lord's final, there is next to no scope for any serious investment in national women's cricket, beyond chance-to-shine and the England development squads. I admit it - My dream of a vibrant professional national women's game is a pipe dream. Internationals are the only area for future financial development in sight. We have that, at least. The players who think otherwise will, I feel, ultimately have to accept this sad reality. I'd like to state now that it is utterly heartbreaking for me to have to write this.
And seemingly desperate attempts to improve the excitement of the game with smaller balls and shorter boundaries have so far failed to deliver any significant advancement in scores or excitement the last 2-3 years. On this landscape, and through the strict lens of market forces, critics are right to suggest that the women's game cannot compete, and is confined to some form of irrelevance, for far too many. I feel it unfortunate that more advocates can't admit this, but then we shouldn't necessarily expect them to as they have a "vested interest." Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd like so very much for them to prove me just that.
But why not let go of this whole burden, and view it all from a different perspective? I've managed to find my own rational space where I can accept these unfortunate features and still support and advocate for the women's game. I'd like you to read below (Because...reasons) where I set out how I've done this. This is why I think the critics are missing something: when viewed through the lens of women's rights, the whole picture looks different.
Anyone who constantly harps on about the low attendances at England women's cricket should take a look overseas. Even other good women's sides like Australia, New Zealand and West Indies get the traditional "one man and his dog" weekday cold early-May County Championship Division Two crowds.
The whole point about attendances is an inane and irrelevant one. I could make a case against men's Test cricket being played by any other side apart from England or Australia in their home countries, by dint of the same logic, and yet most people who know anything about cricket would maintain that Test Match cricket is the heart and soul of the game, and such an intention would be Heresy.
At the end of the day it's what the national cricket boards and TV companies decide to invest in and show, which determines the shape of our exposure to the international game, and that's looking really good for women's cricket. All the major international sides now have their own regularly updated women's cricket sections and most provide free live streaming coverage of the matches. Such services, note, only exist for associate nation's men's teams, such as Ireland.
Of course, the comments sections of these international women's cricket live streaming videos and Facebook posts are filled with the types of naysayers you might expect. Comments range from "This is appallingly embarrassing" to basically supporting the opposition with unbelievable and appalling slut-shaming, ugly-shaming or fat-shaming slurs against their own national side so "this sort of thing won't be shown again".
I can almost feel the "righteous indignance" of these pathetic keyboard warriors, these hysterical, unthinking faux-masculine idiotic windsocks as they stamp their feet and shake their fists at this "outrage" of natural female expression. This is, of course, all before agreeing that the only thing the women are good for are making tea or taking to the bedroom; then one genius points out she's not pretty enough for that, then they all jump on that bigoted bandwagon of "they're all lesbian pie-chuckers who should go back to making the teas". This is the crux of the intellectual and moral pit they have dug themselves into - the definition of a stinking cesspool of misogyny and homophobia.
I say again: Almost never in my life have I seen such utterly outrageous behaviour directed against professional sportswomen playing for their country.
Such comments are dripping with an unhealthy and extremely myopic form of gender elitism, and likely (as an analogy to the notion of "belief in belief") firmly rooted in the fear that the status of women might be raised to a level above what they're comfortable with.
If I were to comment on live disabled sports, such as the excellent recent Invictus Games, or with blind cricket, that it was "embarrassing" because "proper, able-bodied sportsmen could do it better", I'd be swatted down as an ableist bigot in two seconds flat. But somehow, when women are the victims, this type of thing is allowed to slide.
It's all just opinion of course, and usually an uninformed one. These people are basically just saying "oh look, the standard is SO MUCH worse than international men's cricket".
Yeah, no shit, Sherlock.
I was kinda expecting that though seeing as they are generally less physically fast and strong and that they've not been playing the game as long.
As Matt Dillahunty says, "So what?"
I'll tell you what else is so much worse than that too - low end Village Cricket, "the tubby 60-year old bowls to the spotty 16-year old from along the road" type, but no-one would dare suggest that we ought to get rid of that. It is the grass roots of the game. And it's not like these women's sides are all out for 45, week in week out, with Fat Old Dave the Butcher taking 5 for, now is it?
And the faux-supporting the opposition thing is just extremely unpatriotic. Hell, I'm one for holding your own country to account for its failings, but this is bordering on what some people might call "treasonous". Also, making the blanket statement that the nation's women represent that nation to a lesser extent than its men do, is a clear hallmark of sexism.
From a strictly rational perspective, I think I can justify the assertion that you don't need to have a particularly positive opinion about the standard or even momentum of improvement of women's cricket to support it.
In fact, you could even hold the opinion (which I don't by the way) that women's cricket is of a very low standard and won't improve, whilst finding plenty of reasons to support it, and still hold no measure of cognitive dissonance.
Taking this statement as true for me, the need to try and hold up the women's game to any objective standard simply dissolves away. It is what it is.
---
Because...reasons
---
Here is a 6-point list of reasons which, to me, justify investment and interest in women's cricket, regardless of what you think of its "objective standards".

Ultimately, it's more about what goes on abroad than it is about England, but we can set the example of how to have a well run and financed national side.
1. Experiences, fairness and the "right" to play
There is no rational justification for denying women the ability to play the same broad scheme of international fixtures as men do. The only limiting factors to expansion would be interest and attendance, but as we've seen these events can generally take place with very little overhead cost and, if it doesn't interest you, you're free to not watch it. But please, leave it at that.
Some more moderate men come out with comments like "I have little to no interest in women's cricket but I'll defend their right to play it". I wonder if this is the best way to conceptualise the issue.
I'll try to explain what I mean by analogy. I don't have a divine right to eat fruit and vegetables, and get daily exercise, and yet if I didn't do those things, I probably wouldn't be very healthy. I see the world which embraces women's cricket as a healthier world, and the one which denies or ignores it as an intrinsically unhealthier one. After all, the world which denies women playing cricket is one in which their "right to play" being denied would be the least of their worries (take Saudi Arabia with their "virtue police" as an example).
2. Inclusiveness: Denying or minimising others' experiences, achievements or aspirations as invalid, or somehow lesser, is one of the hallmarks of bigotry.
This faux-objective comparison between men's and women's cricket must end. I've said it many times before - everything's relative. It's so frustrating because it is also being perpetrated by female players and pundits. The players only need to be good enough to get the edge over their next opponent - the same is true for any player, no matter their standard. As women only play against other women, the whole issue of attempting to objectively compare between this format and the men's game, is fraught with show-stopping issues, in principle. You are never comparing like for like, to attempt to do so is pure folly.
Are the England women's team as good as a solid men's town club side? A good village side? Or the local kids team? Many would put the current bar about at one of the former two, but at the end of the day, who cares? If it's the best they can do, why does it matter?
Whenever I see a man put a comment like "I'd hit that for six" when commenting on a woman's bowling, I'd like him to present the "long list" of fixtures when he'll get the chance to do just that.
As long as the women's matches remain close and compelling (and lower totals generally mean closer games) there is no reason to think that women's cricket is a less valid experience. The players train just as hard and put in as much effort to their game. And no-one is arguing that they are paid as much as the men with the game in its current state; just a bit more than their expenses, enough to make a living out of it for the best players. This is all that is being asked.
3. Tackling subjugation of women overseas in oppressive patriarchies
Major organisations such as the UN and Population Matters are now heavily promoting advocating of women's rights in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Ambassadors such as Emma Watson (who recently gave a superb speech on the role of men in gender equality, please listen NOW if you haven't already done so, it is an absolute gem) and Angelina Jolie are standing up for this, and role models such as Malala Yousafzai are emerging as effective advocates for a new generation of girls who want the right to an education and their own independence and careers, things long denied to them by dogmatic, patriarchal states who regard such interests as "non-serious activities".
Of course, the level of rational thought of the Mullahs ruling the religious flocks of these lands, is well demonstrated by their consideration that untold hours a day spent praying to a non-existent sky-daddy is indeed a "serious activity".
And what goes hand in hand with higher education, increased wealth and personal freedom and already has a foothold in many African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries? Cricket, of course. Achieving a significant breakthrough in women's cricket in these countries is something which has already been catalysed, and we could be on the cusp of activating in the coming years and decades. Even if you were to present the argument that any progress would be limited to the more financially privileged areas of these countries, we've seen that once given some exposure to a national audience, the players will take it into their own hands to work on the local problems they see day-in day-out with their own initiatives and sponsorships. So I'd still submit that they whole enterprise could be very beneficial.
4. Dealing with the "fundamentalist religious state" problem, all the while completely circumventing the normal cultural and political barriers involved with doing so
Women who have a solid education or a career are statistically likely to be less devoutly religious and more secular than uneducated women, or at least more aware of their own rights and own potential. And uptake of cricket is correlated with higher learning and further education. Secular, educated women are more likely to fight any patriarchal culture from within, demanding a voice among the religious and political leaders where they can take an active role in changing the laws and traditions that have long cemented the problems they faced. This would have the clear corollary of diluting the fundamentalist religious nature of the state and shifting it towards a more moderate, liberal position. And best of all, we don't need armies on the ground, or air strikes, to help them do this.
5. Tackling the overpopulation problem and all the benefits that brings
Supporting women's cricket is synergistic to this goal. Major organisations such as the UN and Population Matters are now heavily pushing combating overpopulation as a key success indicator in the fight against climate change, and the fight against displacement of refugees due to famines, floods or other natural disasters. These are the urgent issues of our time, most impacting on human rights.
Women who have an education or a stable career are statistically likely to have fewer children than uneducated women, and the children they do have are born later in life when they possess more wealth to look after them, resulting in less poverty. Fewer people means fewer mouths to feed, less emitted pollution and a more sustainable use of land that gives a more robust response to climatic challenges such as floods and droughts.
6. Half the Sky: Expanding cricket to a wider audience.
How can the game of cricket be brought to a wider audience? Trying to "break America" is harder and more expensive than focusing on increasing participation in countries where a cricket culture already exists. Immigration by cultural Asian populations into European countries (such as Germany as featured in a recent ESPN Cricinfo article), may allow some development work there, however outside this, the markets for emergence of new sport in most non-cricketing nations are already cornered, and severely limited.
But we can challenge the level of participation in cricket in locales where it already has a good foothold. Getting more girls to play though Chance To Shine-style initiatives may have the happy side-effect of increasing young male participation as well. It's worked in this country and there's no reason to think it won't also work overseas. Raising awareness and garnering local support are the main barriers to this.
--
There may of course be other reasons; this is not intended to be an exhaustive list. But I hope I have presented a rational case to justify my support of women's cricket, my attendance at women's cricket matches and to explain why I think you should do so too. And none of it depends on the game meeting an unattainable objective standard.
Although I'm willing to go to the trouble of documenting these justifications, I do regard it as an unfair burden on me to do so, un-rightfully placed on me by certain others, claiming to be men's rights advocates; and them being insistent that firstly I'm wasting my time and secondly, the whole thing is a joke. If anyone else agrees with me here in arguing against that, I'd be interested in hearing from you. The problem with the standard narrative is that it's just your opinion against theirs. This new perspective I've found opens up previously undiscovered reasons to come onside. 


Tuesday 2 September 2014

September 2014: Headscarves, trolleys and witch hunters

The sickening menace of "occult entrepreneurs" in Africa

So self-styled witch hunter and evangelical Christian preacher Helen Ukpabio is trying to censor her critics by suing them for the ridiculous sum of £500M.

Let's make no mistake, Ukpabio is at the forefront of the disgusting trend we see in Africa of what I call "occult entrepreneurship". There are a growing number of shamans, preachers and "witch hunters" who "problem solve" for people down on their luck, by calling out the most vulnerable members of society as witches or as possessed by evil spirits, and as being responsible for all the ills. If someone has marital problems, a bad harvest etc. then those witchy-woos must be to blame. Those with no means to stand up to the occultists are targeted - children and the elderly are their most common victims. The occult entrepreneurs will charge to "identify the culprit" and then encourage the community to push these poor people away, and it often goes way further than that.

Such people have become sickeningly rich at the expense of many other poor people who have been displaced, banished with nothing, injured or even killed by their horrific tactics. They are opportunistic bullies and parasites on the back of an often uneducated and all-too-gullible populace. With this ludicrous lawsuit, their behaviour is becoming as outrageous and audacious, as it is despicable and dangerous to society's most vulnerable.

This is not just a "western" perspective, in case you're tempted into cultural relativism here. Leo Igwe (a brilliant skeptic, rationalist and human rights campaigner from Nigeria) gave a wonderful interview to the Reasonable Doubts podcast, in which he describes this awful problem in some detail from an African perspective.




---
Headscarves

This is an interesting and quite moving story of a female Muslim journalist working at the BBC and how she has reconciled some degree of independence, with her religion. It's a good example of how anyone still entrenched in belief can make small changes to fight against what is, at its most basic level, an entirely arbitrary dogma.

---
Trolleys

In this very thought-provoking (and extremely funny) podcast, Tracie Harris from The Atheist Experience puts across her views on the ethical dilemma of the trolley problem. This is what I was talking about when I previously discussed it on the blog. I really can't blame someone for choosing either option and insisting that the utilitarian approach (flick the switch and kill the one person instead of five) must be correct, is a vast oversimplification. Tracie is the expert at explaining her point of view very effectively using analogies, and again does an impressive job here.

---
Last but not least...the wonderful Prof. Alice Roberts


I saw her at the BHA earlier in the year. So charismatic and such an intellect. Very nice, and a very effective public speaker too. Can Alice Roberts get any more awesome? Maybe if she had more public presence and the ability to influence people in power! Get on that BHA!



Wednesday 13 August 2014

Polarising views on the Israel / Palestine conflict


Sam Harris is at it again, courting controversy with an alarmingly titled piece: "Why I don't criticise Israel", in which, he does actually criticise Israel (a bit at least, although not enough for me and not nearly enough for many I expect).

I actually do take issue with much of Harris' article. Harris does have some strange opinions, notably on guns and racial profiling, and here,  but he always makes you think by offering some of the better arguments for that position. Likewise here, he offers some strong considerations. The whole situation with Israel/Palestine is a mess and there's seemingly no simple answer to all the problems. It does annoy me though when people's views are so polarized.

Here are some other interesting perspectives, which also seem to be a bit biased towards the Israeli side




For a slightly more pro-Gaza slant, see the following 2 podcasts:



I will take a look at some of Harris' thoughts in more detail. In his article, he says:

"And there are millions of Jews, literally millions among the few million who exist, for whom Judaism is very important, and yet they are atheists. They don’t believe in God at all. This is actually a position you can hold in Judaism, but it’s a total non sequitur in Islam or Christianity.
So, when we’re talking about the consequences of irrational beliefs based on scripture, the Jews are the least of the least offenders... It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.
Of course, there are some who are. There are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people."

Whilst I might agree that the average Israeli per se is not heavily influenced by the stcrict orthodox doctrine of the Jewish faith, I do find it an unwarranted leap overall to say that their atheism is an actual tangible thing - as it is chiefly kept in check by what I would regard as a heavy sense of national and / or cultural duty to the Jewish people's traditional faith. 
And even if I concede (which I don't) that so many Israelis (or Jews) were effectively atheists, this says nothing about their ability to possess sensible or sustainable political views.

There is some evidence to suggest that either Harris is wrong, or that if he's right it's irrelevant anyway. There is no significant political or social movement in Israel to oppose the IDF's advances or the political and economic will behind it (although this does exist to larger degrees externally, including in the UK). Maybe this is because of local factors pressurising people into supporting the war.

Note that, like America, Israel has a large and profitable economy built around military technology and production - a "Military Industrial Complex". If you have any doubts, check out pages like this and note the links to other locally based armaments manufacturers.

Companies like this actively profit from the ongoing conflict in Gaza and we shouldn't forget to include this in our assessment of the situation. 

Let's not forget that theoretically, all the world's Muslims could beat Israel back to wherever they wanted , if they just formed an alliance of sufficient military might. The fact that this never happens should tell you a bit about how divided their faith is, and the animosity that exists between Middle Eastern nations on a geopolitical scale.*

Another point I have is a critique of Harris' defence of the Iraeli military's use of force against civilians, and how their forces could actually be badly compromised even if Israel has the official position, and follows that position, that collateral damage is unacceptable.

Harris says:

 "Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we—the Americans, or Western Europeans—have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. And the condemnation leveled at them by the rest of the world is completely out of proportion to what they have actually done...
"Now, is it possible that some Israeli soldiers go berserk under pressure and wind up shooting into crowds of rock-throwing children? Of course. You will always find some soldiers acting this way in the middle of a war. But we know that this isn’t the general intent of Israel. We know the Israelis do not want to kill non-combatants, because they could kill as many as they want, and they’re not doing it."

Firstly, they couldn't kill as many as they want, if their intention is to avoid heavy international censure and sanctions. Although I suspect Harris may be right on this point, I've not seen evidence to show that there aren't Zionist elements within the system that have much less interest in reducing casualties. This may not be an intentional consequence of Israel's policies, but it is a distinct possibility in my view, because Harris forgets to mention one thing that would counter his point : the Israeli military draft.

Miltary drafts are stupid, let's make no mistake.They militarise the population and put pressure on the financial and  educational aspirations of a nation's brightest citizens. One large criticism of Israel I have is that they should have gone to the UN or other Western powers for help before instituting a draft. Drafts negatively affect the administration's ability to effectively vet who they allow into the armed forces. This is simple logic: you can't increase your uptake of soldiers from the population beyond normal recruitment without sacrificing something in terms of selectivity. At some point it stops becoming about how effective a soldier you will be and more about how much of a "patriot" you are and whether you can fire a gun. This is where the problems start. I'm not saying it's intentional, just almost impossible to avoid once processes like drafts become involved.

Another misleading argument Harris provides goes as follows:

"And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies...To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it.
What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They’re not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah."

Here he has clearly contradicted his own position. Firstly, we have "Israel can do anything it wants, but chooses not to" and then "Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel gets closer to international pariah status". If that were true, then they wouldn't actually be able to do what they wanted without severe economic and possibly military sanctions. Of course the truth is largely that western powers have become Israeli bedfellows, due to extensive political lobbying, especially in the US. Therefore, Israel can go much further than many other countries before those in power would consider doing anything about it. I don't regard any of this as particularly strong evidence of Israeli compassion or mercy.

And for the Palestinians:

"What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could."

I'm not disputing his reasoning, just whether there is ever any realistic chance of that ever coming to fruition. It would require Israel losing all its power (something no-one is suggesting), or some sort of union of Middle Eastern states to unite as one and oppose them (* which as I've already suggested is unrealistic). If it ever did look likely, I suggest western powers would jump into action pretty quickly (as indeed they should).
Regardless of what the charter of Hamas says, if it never obtains the means of carrying that out, then it's largely irrelevant. 

"A rabid dog, straining at its leash" perhaps?

Straining is the operative word. Intentions matter, but they don't make reality. You can't argue with the fact that Israel is currently the country which is killing more people, and that it has no such avowed killing charter. My point is, charters may display theorectical intentions, but in reality, those may actually never be realised. And again I reiterate, even if they could, all we need to do is look out for it and intervene.

If an angry child vows to kill his brother, we don't condone the brother beating him up badly even though he doesn't INTEND to kill him in return. Actual consequences matter. Isn't it strange that one week, I'm arguing against all-encompassing consequentialism, and the next, reminding people that intentions count for little unless they can realistically potentially be brought about?

This all goes back to the problem of the misleading media coverage in the west. How do we know that the world is focused so much on all Israel's actions? I hadn't realised plenty of extremely dubious activities they've been involved in. Some great points are brought up in the recent double episode of Atheistically Speaking.

I mostly agree with Harris in his concluding paragraph, unlike some other commentators I've read. He says: 

"This is the great story of our time. For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our children, we are going to be confronted by people who don’t want to live peacefully in a secular, pluralistic world, because they are desperate to get to Paradise, and they are willing to destroy the very possibility of human happiness along the way. The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet."

I don't think Harris means that people outside Israel are literally living there, nor does he mean to equate all their geopolitical problems with anyone else's. 

This is simply a reflection of the ultimate confrontation that will eventually ensue if fundamentalist Islamism is allowed to spread out into the West: an acknowledegement that it is completely incompatible with any form of tolerant secularism, in a most basic way. 

Harris's critics (of which I regard myself as one, at least some of the time) would do well to note that. By changing one word in this statement though, we can also refute any ideas that Judaism is either somewhat less intrinsically harmful, or effectively less harmful today (which I gather may be akin to Harris' position). 

I can also say that:

"We are all living in Israel" is simply a reflection of the ultimate confrontation that will ensue if fundamentalist Judaism (Zionism) is allowed to spread out into the West (more thoroughly than it already has): an acknowledegement that it is completely incompatible with any form of tolerant secularism, in a most basic way."

Harris is making it all about the delusions of Hamas, and frightening though those might be, the treatment of Palestinians by Israel "being able to do what they want" due to internal fundamentalist politics, and US vetos at the UN etc. has long been an international outrage. 

And we can do something about it. We can stop supporting them, for a start. Condemnations of the killings are all well and good but when you could take positive actions but don't, it reveals a bit about how much you actually care about what is going on. Whilst Harris would like to make out that Israel is in the more intellectually secure position, I am less convinced of that.

Sunday 10 August 2014

In his new article on the BBC website, Will Self promotes "Belief in Belief"

A quickie on what I feel is a bad article by Will Self on BBC website

In his article, Will Self unashamedly promotes "belief in belief" - which Daniel Dennett thoroughly dismantles in his brilliant talk which can be seen on Youtube here, in 3 short parts:







"Belief in belief" is, after unpacking the motivations, at its core dishonest and rooted in one's own fears about the collapse of consensus that God is real. 

Self goes on to promote the old canard that "we don't understand how electrical wiring works so when you press the light switch you have FAITH that it will work. We defer the understanding to qualified individuals".

Despite the reasons to believe this is not really Faith, as Peter Boghossian has shown in his recent book "A Manual for Creating Atheists", the main problem here is that despite what you think about our lack of understanding of electrics or anything else in the secular world, it far surpasses our knowledge about the metaphysical one. 

This is because even the so-called "experts" on belief and theology either can't agree about how to understand God, or don't even claim to themselves. There are no "religious experts" in the same sense that there are experts in electrical engineering. Therefore faith in what these individuals assert involves a much higher order of uncertainty.

Self doesn't actually know that less belief in God would result in more nihilism, but he paints the false dichotomy of belief or nihilism while neglecting to mention any form of intermediate ie. humanism. 

A poorly thought out article by Self, trying to disguise itself as rational.