800 "Saints" All At Once!

Pope Frank made 800 new saints. That's so many at one time! How can he do that? I thought there were supposed to be miracles associated with the canonization?

Well, I'm glad you pointed that out, because what happened, see, was that 800 Christians were killed (martyred, really) by Ottoman Turks in 1480 (talk about your long time before recognition). What's supposed to happen is there should be two "miracles" attributed to the would-be-saint(s). Normal stuff: curing cancer, stopping the Sun, restoring an amputated limb...pretty standard, really.

As it turns out, all 800 of these folks were killed, "in hatred of the faith", so we can toss out one "miracle" claim, because Jesus. The second is that a nun (who has *NO REASON TO LIE OR MAKE SHIT UP*), who had cancer, according to the Church (who have *NO REASON TO LIE OR MAKE SHIT UP*), was cured after praying to a memorial to the 800 folks. So, that wraps that up, right people?

National Research Coucil of Dorks

Ughh.

"Scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value," National Research Council president John McDougall said in the linked article. Right next to him, our Minister of Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, said, "There is (sic) only two reasons why we do science and technology. First is to create knowledge ... second is to use that knowledge for social and economic benefit. Unfortunately, all too often the knowledge gained is opportunity lost."

It's sort of like our Canadian version of John McCain and Sarah Palin mocking fruit fly research. Never mind that research done for interest's sake often leads to amazing and innovative developments for business, medicine, and more; these two guys really don't seem to have any idea about how science works.

Then there's this: “The day is past when a researcher could hit a home run simply by publishing a paper on some new discovery,” Goodyear said. “The home run is when somebody utilizes the knowledge that was discovered for social or economic gain.” Mr. Goodyear, in my opinion, hasn't the first clue of how science is done, what leads to "home runs", or how to get away from political talking points. Business doesn't drive scientific inquiry - curiousity and intellect does.

Boo, you two. Boo.

Thanks to Phil Plait for tipping me off to this and, you know, for being generally awesome.

Health Canada Licenses Homeopathic "Vaccines"

I was just hipped to something terrible. Eve Rickert (aka @talksciencetome) mentioned that Health Canada has licensed so-called homeopathic "vaccines". How Health Canada, which states as its first goal that it, "Relies on high-quality scientific research as the basis for our work", could let anything homeopathic enter its recommendations is beyond me. Just saying that you rely on high-quality scientific research means that homeopathic mixtures/tinctures/concoctions/potions/fucking-magic-swirly-dust-pills (hereafter known as MTCPF pills) are gone from the shelves. Keep them, if you must, but don't "license" them or give them any sort of actual endorsement by a government organization that purports to have scientific rigor as a core principle.

I mean, for shit's sake, Health Canada has a whole page on ear candles that kicks the legs right out from underneath the charlatans who sell those stupid things.

Perhaps the Health Canada's General Questions - Regulation of Natural Health Products will lead us to some answers. Here we find this quote:

Under the Food and Drugs Act, NHPs (natural health products) must be classified as either a food or a drug since there is no other category in which to classify them. Because NHPs are taken for therapeutic reasons and not for caloric purposes or to address hunger, they are more similar to drugs than food.

Wait a second. So if I eat sugar pills for "therapeutic purposes", that makes sugar pills "drugs"? What happened to relying on "high-quality scientific research"?

Then there's this paragraph:

During consultations on NHPs, Canadians consistently asked for controls to make sure what is on the label is in the bottle and ensure a pre-market assessment of health claims. While creating another category distinct from both food and drugs was considered, an amendment at the level of the Act would have been necessary. Because the timelines and legislative process needed for a change of this magnitude would be long, it was decided that natural health products would be considered drugs under the Act, but with a set of regulations specific to NHPs.

This seems to be saying that Canadians want labels to be honest and reflect what's in the bottles they're buying (obviously). This is not the case with homeopathic MTCPF pills. They're sugar pills, as has been demonstrated, again and again. It's not medicine, they're not "drugs", they're nothing. If you take homeopathy for anything serious, like, say, eczema, you'll likely die.

all manufacturers, importers, packagers and labellers of NHPs use good manufacturing practices (GMPs) and have site licences. All NHPs that used to have a Drug Identification Number (DIN) now have either a Natural Product Number (NPN) or a Homeopathic Medicine Number (DIN-HM).

Maybe this is just my extreme bias showing, but having the word "medicine" associated with anything homeopathic is annoying and, quite frankly, disrespectful to actual medicine and the people involved in making/distributing it.

Say what you will about the pharmaceutical industry (and you should, and many important people have), for the most part, the scientists and R&D people know what they're doing. They put out medicine that saves and prolongs lives. They do this by doing real science; real, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that ensure, as well as can be, that the drugs work and have an actual effect that outweighs any side-effects. Do they get it wrong sometimes? Absolutely.

But homeopathy is just "Big Homeo" - they sell sugar pills with literally no active ingredient for a massive markup to a public who they purposely keep in the dark as to what homeopathy actually is. Most people on the street just think homeopathy is "natural medicine" and that it is safe and effective, because, hey, Health Canada says they need a fucking "homeopathic medicine number". Thanks for nothing, Health Canada. Let's try to get back on the side of "high-quality scientific research", shall we?

Where Do You Get Your Morals From?

First of all, holy crap, I haven't written anything in a long long time. There kept being these stories in the news from all over the world that I thought, "Man, I should blog about that...", then my kid would take a poop in the living room and priorities would change and it'd be two weeks later and there'd be a new Pope and I'd think, "Man, I should blog about that...."

Yes, I meant to put "poop" and "pope" in close juxtaposition.

Secondly, the Amanda Berry story is terrifying and disgusting and, thankfully, in possession of a happy ending. I really try not to be a death penalty guy, but goddamn is it hard sometimes.

Ok, on to what I actually want to write about. I get asked quite often while engaging in theological debates/discussions about morality. We see it all the time in debates online when the religious side bring up morals and asks, usually pointedly, some version of, "Well where do you get your morals from, if not from the Bible/Koran/Torah/Special Holy Book That Means So Much To So Many Of Us?"

Usually their argument boils down to: your morality *has* to come from somewhere, and it *can't* come from you, so my book has these really great ideas that you use in your life, therefore you got your morality from my book/God(s)!

A lot of the time, "moral relativism" is brought up as the evil of all evils that you MUST be on board with if you don't subscribe to biblical/religious morality. What this line of thought lacks, in my experience, is the knowledge that pretty much all religious morality is a hodge-podge of adapted and updated religious ideas. In fact, A.J. Jacobs wrote a book called, The Year of Living Biblically which, in its quirky and flity way, shows that you *can't* live by all the rules in the bible. It's impossible in modern society...or even way back when the thing was written.

The explanation that I use for modern secular morality comes from our roads. When I say, "our roads", I mean the roads all over the planet made by people. If you go to any country (particularly with automobiles) you'll see that they have rules for driving. Some on the left, some on the right; speed limits vary; merging, signalling, and stopping at intersections all have their rules. How did we come to have these agreed upon rules?

We talked about it. A bunch of people sat down and thought about what makes sense. These rules have changed over time and continue to be adapted and re-written, but they all come from people. They are, on the whole, coherent and make sense when explained in the context of the culture and society they came from. Talking about issues is how we solve problems.

Morality is no different, really. We are social animals who live together in groups. We then have rules for behaviour that make life with each other more pleasant and productive. You can't let someone go around stealing, killing, and raping (no "Commandment" against that last one, by the way) and still remain part of the group. So what do we do? We sit together and hash out some basic rules for how to get along. It really isn't that hard to see how morality (or driving laws, or rules for flying planes...) got its groundwork laid.

So there. I'll try to write again before the next major meteor shower happens...but don't hold me to it. There's always some poop to deal with.

Joey Ratz Gone - And Good Riddance

As it is March 1st, many of you may feel that crispness in the air that signifies no one on Earth believing they are infallible. That's right, Pope Joey Ratz has stepped down from his golden throne for "health reasons". You may also be wondering why it is that I would put "health reasons" in quotes because, geez, why would the Vatican make that up? I mean, he's old and stuff and being the Pope is a pretty demanding job. Well....

See, I listened to the Geologic Podcast last week and George Hrab mentioned a documentary he watched on HBO called Mea Maxima Culpa. In this documentary, it tells the tragic story of a group of deaf boys who were molested by a priest. The boys eventually do something about it and bring the story to the attention of the police, the legal institution, and ultimately, the Vatican. Now, through documentation and evidence, the story shows that as of 2001, then Cardinal Joey Ratz gets signed into Vatican Water Buffalo Law by then Pope JPII, that any and all child abuse cases will pass through Ratz. So from 2001, Ratz knew about every abuse case from all over the world and did nothing about it, hid abusers, stonewalled victims and reporters, and basically was the worst kind of scumbag protectors of pedophiles.

Don't you think it's funny (weird, not "haha") that this documentary comes out and now *cough cough* the Pope seems to be *cough cough* feeling a bit under the *cough* weather? He is explicitly named as someone who is not just knowledgeable, but the most knowledgeable about child rape in the church, and the primary one who kept everything under his gayly flowing robes and stupid fish hat. But no, he's old and decrepit. Let's run with that and see who buys it. *cough*

Seriously, look at these dudes:

Some may see serious-looking men at a serious ceremony to decide on an important leader for a vast religion of great import. I see a bunch of nipple-headed jackasses who've wasted their lives on harmful bullshit.

One Minute Medical School

I love this guy. He does medical concepts and anatomy videos in one minute that are concise and very well explained. Check him out. Here's the latest vid on Herd Immunity:

Indian Gang-Rape Commentary - Good Article

There is a high occurence of rape/gang-rape in India, along with high levels of societal violence. After a recent attack where a 23 year old girl was viciously raped and beaten, then thrown from a moving bus, protests have been on-going and the crowds have been demanding a change in the laws to make rape a capital crime.

An article in The Hindu argues that the problem is deeper than that and bringing the death penalty into play is not the right answer. His argument is that Indian males have to be brought up differently and the attitude towards women by everyone have to change.

This idea of a woman as a fully formed human subject remains a difficult concept to embrace.

If this doesn't change, making legal threats or throwing the death penalty around won't make a difference.