ScienceDaily: Variable Physical Laws
This seems very important, although what exactly it means for cosmology is not at all clear:
On April 21 this year new findings were published in Physical Review Letters implying that a dimensionless constant – the ratio between the electron mass and the proton mass – has changed with time.
And shortly measurements will be presented in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society showing that another dimensionless constant, called the fine structure constant, is also varying with time.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Now if only I spoke Japanese
Love and marriage in Japan | White weddings | Economist.com
An amusing article about "fake" Western weddings at one particular fake church in Japan:
Weddings are what it does, at ¥5m ($46,000) a time for 100 guests, five times a day.
The couples who come have already married before at a city registrar. Their wedding at St Grace Cathedral and similar places offers only the outward trappings of a Christian wedding. Most establishments get couples and their guests through the service in 40 minutes; one cut-rate place does it in 20. Catering is where the money is made, while most other wedding services—flowers, choir, even harpist—are subcontracted.
The most sought-after is the Western “priest”. These are supplied by an ecclesiastical talent agency complete with fake ordination papers, should anyone bother to ask. For impoverished actors, models and English-language teachers, the work is manna: the pay is ¥10,000-15,000 a service, and you can do eight a day. One young Westerner, who earns ¥10m a year for a three-day week, says the work is not easy: unlike acting, where at least you get a break, you have to be a priest all day, and speak flawless Japanese to boot.
An amusing article about "fake" Western weddings at one particular fake church in Japan:
Weddings are what it does, at ¥5m ($46,000) a time for 100 guests, five times a day.
The couples who come have already married before at a city registrar. Their wedding at St Grace Cathedral and similar places offers only the outward trappings of a Christian wedding. Most establishments get couples and their guests through the service in 40 minutes; one cut-rate place does it in 20. Catering is where the money is made, while most other wedding services—flowers, choir, even harpist—are subcontracted.
The most sought-after is the Western “priest”. These are supplied by an ecclesiastical talent agency complete with fake ordination papers, should anyone bother to ask. For impoverished actors, models and English-language teachers, the work is manna: the pay is ¥10,000-15,000 a service, and you can do eight a day. One young Westerner, who earns ¥10m a year for a three-day week, says the work is not easy: unlike acting, where at least you get a break, you have to be a priest all day, and speak flawless Japanese to boot.
Zarqawi in pre-war Iraq
Their Man in Baghdad
Stephen Hayes article above, about Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war is important.
The Atlantic agrees that he was there, but caims that Zarqawi was not really connected with al-Qaeda at all during that time. However, it seems that the article does not really explain what he was doing in the Sunni triangle prior to the war.
All very interesting.
Stephen Hayes article above, about Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war is important.
The Atlantic agrees that he was there, but caims that Zarqawi was not really connected with al-Qaeda at all during that time. However, it seems that the article does not really explain what he was doing in the Sunni triangle prior to the war.
All very interesting.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Anti terrorism story missed
Captain's Quarters
I missed this from earlier in the week:
A terrorist cell plotted to shoot down an Israeli airliner over Switzerland but was foiled by intelligence services, Swiss prosecutors said yesterday.
Seven people of north African origin are under arrest in connection with the alleged plot, said a statement from the federal prosecutor's office.
I guess it must be all those Swiss soldiers in Iraq that provoked this terrorist plan that (no doubt) would have endangered Swiss lives.
I missed this from earlier in the week:
A terrorist cell plotted to shoot down an Israeli airliner over Switzerland but was foiled by intelligence services, Swiss prosecutors said yesterday.
Seven people of north African origin are under arrest in connection with the alleged plot, said a statement from the federal prosecutor's office.
I guess it must be all those Swiss soldiers in Iraq that provoked this terrorist plan that (no doubt) would have endangered Swiss lives.
Death on the beach
Artillery fire kills 12, wounds dozens on Gaza beach | Jerusalem Post
Bad time for such an incident to happen. That it was an accident would seem to be strongly supported by this (from the report in the The Jerusalem Post):
According to Galant, the IDF is currently investigating two possible options: misfiring of an artillery round or a dud that exploded on the Gaza beach.
"Even when a tragic and unfortunate incident takes place, it does not mean that we are not committed to defending the citizens of southern Israel who face continuous barrages of Kassam rockets," he said.
The IDF confirmed the Gaza coast deaths, saying that it regretted the harm done to innocent civilians and offering the Palestinians any assistance needed, including evacuation to Israeli hospitals.
Neither The Age , the ABC nor The Australian's reports mention this offer of help in Israeli hospitals. (In fact, The Australian's story is one of the least balanced and inflammatory versions I have read.) The Guardian, to its credit, does mention the offer of assistance. Funny what gets left out of reporting on the Middle East.
Bad time for such an incident to happen. That it was an accident would seem to be strongly supported by this (from the report in the The Jerusalem Post):
According to Galant, the IDF is currently investigating two possible options: misfiring of an artillery round or a dud that exploded on the Gaza beach.
"Even when a tragic and unfortunate incident takes place, it does not mean that we are not committed to defending the citizens of southern Israel who face continuous barrages of Kassam rockets," he said.
The IDF confirmed the Gaza coast deaths, saying that it regretted the harm done to innocent civilians and offering the Palestinians any assistance needed, including evacuation to Israeli hospitals.
Neither The Age , the ABC nor The Australian's reports mention this offer of help in Israeli hospitals. (In fact, The Australian's story is one of the least balanced and inflammatory versions I have read.) The Guardian, to its credit, does mention the offer of assistance. Funny what gets left out of reporting on the Middle East.
John Marsden again
The reputation rapists at large - Opinion - smh.com.au
Mike Carlton comes to John Marden's defence in the Sydney Morning Herald today. He says (of the successful criminal injuries compensation case):
[Judge]Taylor did not find that Marsden had abused anybody, let alone the eight-year-old boy. He came to no such conclusion.
This was a civil case - not a criminal trial with rules of evidence, cross-examination and a jury - in which a man, referred to as "F", had sought money from the Victims Compensation Tribunal for sexual abuse he claimed to have suffered as a child in the '60s.
The tribunal had turned him down. In 2001, F appealed before Taylor in the District Court. There was general medical and specialist psychiatric evidence to support his case. The judge accepted that evidence, found that F had been sexually assaulted, and awarded compensation of $40,000.
But at no stage during the hearing, nor in Taylor's written judgement of July 6, 2001, was any offender or alleged offender named. The word "Marsden" never appeared. Despite the emphatic assertions of Hicks and Fife-Yeomans, it did not happen. Not verbally. Not in print - I have read the judgement. There was no laying of guilt.
For some extracts from the initial report, see my previous post here.
There's something fishy about this, I think. While Carlton is presumably correct about what the judgement says, he seems to be suggesting that in the whole process of making this claim Marsden's name was not brought up. But that surely can't be correct, can it? When a victim makes a claim for compensation in New South Wales, he or she does not have to name the alleged offender? For that matter, if they fail, why is the name not mentioned in the appeal?
Also, I am pretty sure that the original report about this (the link is now dead) said that the successful victim claims he was warned off proceeding with a criminal case by Marsden. (Behaviour which would not be inconsistent with what happened in the defamation action. But then again it might be a recent invention based on the reporting of the defamation case.)
I would love to see a more detailed explanation of what happened in this victim's case. Will the ABC, which pursues other controversial legal cases, take this on in a documentary? (I think it deserves more than a 30 minute Australian Story, though.)
I am also surprised that journalist David Marr has not taken this on. He must have known Marsden, surely, and be "outraged" (I can hear his plummy voice saying it already) by slurs against a fellow gay lawyer. Or does Marr know something about Marsden he would prefer not to say? (Just a guess...)
Mike Carlton comes to John Marden's defence in the Sydney Morning Herald today. He says (of the successful criminal injuries compensation case):
[Judge]Taylor did not find that Marsden had abused anybody, let alone the eight-year-old boy. He came to no such conclusion.
This was a civil case - not a criminal trial with rules of evidence, cross-examination and a jury - in which a man, referred to as "F", had sought money from the Victims Compensation Tribunal for sexual abuse he claimed to have suffered as a child in the '60s.
The tribunal had turned him down. In 2001, F appealed before Taylor in the District Court. There was general medical and specialist psychiatric evidence to support his case. The judge accepted that evidence, found that F had been sexually assaulted, and awarded compensation of $40,000.
But at no stage during the hearing, nor in Taylor's written judgement of July 6, 2001, was any offender or alleged offender named. The word "Marsden" never appeared. Despite the emphatic assertions of Hicks and Fife-Yeomans, it did not happen. Not verbally. Not in print - I have read the judgement. There was no laying of guilt.
For some extracts from the initial report, see my previous post here.
There's something fishy about this, I think. While Carlton is presumably correct about what the judgement says, he seems to be suggesting that in the whole process of making this claim Marsden's name was not brought up. But that surely can't be correct, can it? When a victim makes a claim for compensation in New South Wales, he or she does not have to name the alleged offender? For that matter, if they fail, why is the name not mentioned in the appeal?
Also, I am pretty sure that the original report about this (the link is now dead) said that the successful victim claims he was warned off proceeding with a criminal case by Marsden. (Behaviour which would not be inconsistent with what happened in the defamation action. But then again it might be a recent invention based on the reporting of the defamation case.)
I would love to see a more detailed explanation of what happened in this victim's case. Will the ABC, which pursues other controversial legal cases, take this on in a documentary? (I think it deserves more than a 30 minute Australian Story, though.)
I am also surprised that journalist David Marr has not taken this on. He must have known Marsden, surely, and be "outraged" (I can hear his plummy voice saying it already) by slurs against a fellow gay lawyer. Or does Marr know something about Marsden he would prefer not to say? (Just a guess...)
Sea level again
Christopher Pearson: Rising tide of bad science | Opinion | The Australian
From what I can recall of past columns, Pearson's scepticism of global warming may be too extreme, but his column today on sea level rise is pretty good. (Basic message: it's defintely not the case that any islands are currently suffering from global warming induced sea level rises, and indeed any serious effect is quite a way off yet.)
He is right to criticise Labor on this. As I noted in a past post, Albanese is well and truly a gullible dill who does not appear capable of independent fact checking. As Pearson says:
Our island neighbours may well have claims on our foreign aid, but as a matter of charity rather than any sort of entitlement. In the absence of compelling evidence, and in defiance of Darwin's model, Labor shouldn't be encouraging them to believe that they are the victims of profligate coal, gas and oil-fired economies. Nor should it be creating unrealistic expectations that, as the largest regional consumer of fossil fuels, Australia has endless obligations to a new class of mendicants from Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Carteret or the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.
My other posts on sea level rises are here, here here and here.
From what I can recall of past columns, Pearson's scepticism of global warming may be too extreme, but his column today on sea level rise is pretty good. (Basic message: it's defintely not the case that any islands are currently suffering from global warming induced sea level rises, and indeed any serious effect is quite a way off yet.)
He is right to criticise Labor on this. As I noted in a past post, Albanese is well and truly a gullible dill who does not appear capable of independent fact checking. As Pearson says:
Our island neighbours may well have claims on our foreign aid, but as a matter of charity rather than any sort of entitlement. In the absence of compelling evidence, and in defiance of Darwin's model, Labor shouldn't be encouraging them to believe that they are the victims of profligate coal, gas and oil-fired economies. Nor should it be creating unrealistic expectations that, as the largest regional consumer of fossil fuels, Australia has endless obligations to a new class of mendicants from Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Carteret or the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.
My other posts on sea level rises are here, here here and here.
Friday, June 09, 2006
An unusual death
The Japan Times Online - Brake, software probed in Tokyo elevator death
What surprises me, in a way, is that elevator deaths seem so uncommon. I mean, I just would have thought they would malfunction with dangerous consequences much more often.
What surprises me, in a way, is that elevator deaths seem so uncommon. I mean, I just would have thought they would malfunction with dangerous consequences much more often.
Polar bears' problem
The Japan Times Online - '98 Arctic thaw laid to warm ocean, not hot air
Not sure whether this is really relevant to global warming arguments or not, but still it's interesting.
Not sure whether this is really relevant to global warming arguments or not, but still it's interesting.
An Austin Powers moment
The Aljazeera.net reporting of the death of Al Zarqawi contains an item about the reaction of his family. It seems that even though they had to distance themselves from him after the (very unpopular) hotel bombings in Amman, they are now happy to talk of him being a martyr.
There is also mention of how a nephew feels "so sad" about it. When reading this, I had a sudden reminder of the funny/clever part of the first Austin Powers movie, where the death of one of the evil henchmen is followed by scenes of how his very "all american" family are upset by the news.
There is also mention of how a nephew feels "so sad" about it. When reading this, I had a sudden reminder of the funny/clever part of the first Austin Powers movie, where the death of one of the evil henchmen is followed by scenes of how his very "all american" family are upset by the news.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Euthanasia and consequences
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Call for no-consent euthanasia
The key part of this argument is all to do with moral philosophy:
Prof Doyal says withdrawing life-saving treatment from severely incompetent patients - which may involve turning off a ventilator, ending antibiotics or withdrawing a feeding tube - is "believed to be morally appropriate because it constitutes doing nothing. It is disease that does the dirty work, not the clinician. Yet this argument cannot wash away the foreseeable suffering of severely incompetent patients sometimes forced to die avoidably slow and distressing deaths."
He draws a parallel with a father who sees his baby drowning in the bath and fails to do anything to save it. The father foresaw the certainty of the death and did nothing and would therefore be morally considered to have killed the child.
"Clinicians who starve severely incompetent patients to death are not deemed by law to have killed them actively, even if they begin the process by the removal of feeding tubes. The legal fiction that such starvation is not active killing is no more than clumsy judicial camouflage of the euthanasia that is actually occurring."
First of all, I thought that there was quite a lot of confidence that most cases of withdrawal of treatment did not cause unnecessary suffering. (Or at least, if suffering was detected, there is no issue with administering pain relief, even if an unintended consequence is shortening life.) So I am not sure that unnecessary suffering is really the issue.
But this Professor's arguments are all based on an acceptance that consequentialism is the right way to make ethical decisions. Peter Singer is also a "consequentialist", which should send up warnings.
Rather than have me bang on about why it consquentialism is a problem, have a look at the good Wikipedia article about its critics. (All hail Wikipedia.)
The key part of this argument is all to do with moral philosophy:
Prof Doyal says withdrawing life-saving treatment from severely incompetent patients - which may involve turning off a ventilator, ending antibiotics or withdrawing a feeding tube - is "believed to be morally appropriate because it constitutes doing nothing. It is disease that does the dirty work, not the clinician. Yet this argument cannot wash away the foreseeable suffering of severely incompetent patients sometimes forced to die avoidably slow and distressing deaths."
He draws a parallel with a father who sees his baby drowning in the bath and fails to do anything to save it. The father foresaw the certainty of the death and did nothing and would therefore be morally considered to have killed the child.
"Clinicians who starve severely incompetent patients to death are not deemed by law to have killed them actively, even if they begin the process by the removal of feeding tubes. The legal fiction that such starvation is not active killing is no more than clumsy judicial camouflage of the euthanasia that is actually occurring."
First of all, I thought that there was quite a lot of confidence that most cases of withdrawal of treatment did not cause unnecessary suffering. (Or at least, if suffering was detected, there is no issue with administering pain relief, even if an unintended consequence is shortening life.) So I am not sure that unnecessary suffering is really the issue.
But this Professor's arguments are all based on an acceptance that consequentialism is the right way to make ethical decisions. Peter Singer is also a "consequentialist", which should send up warnings.
Rather than have me bang on about why it consquentialism is a problem, have a look at the good Wikipedia article about its critics. (All hail Wikipedia.)
A Danny Katz piece
Subliminal scholarship, schoolboy-style - Danny Katz - Opinion - theage.com.au
I have mentioned before how I think Danny Katz is a great humourist. If only he could write something decent for Australian TV comedy. (Who knows, maybe he does?)
Anyway, his column above made me laugh.
I have mentioned before how I think Danny Katz is a great humourist. If only he could write something decent for Australian TV comedy. (Who knows, maybe he does?)
Anyway, his column above made me laugh.
More detail, Ken
Nuclear electricity is just more expensive - Opinion - theage.com.au
Kenneth Davidson in The Age, talking about nuclear power, makes this surprising comment:
Lovelock's Gaia theory, which treats the Earth as a kind of living organism, is as revolutionary as the Renaissance was 500 years ago when man displaced God at the centre of the world. It means that the survival of the Earth as a self-regulating ecosystem must take precedence over individual rights.
All hail Mother Gaia!
I think Ken should specify which "individual rights" he has in mind here.
Kenneth Davidson in The Age, talking about nuclear power, makes this surprising comment:
Lovelock's Gaia theory, which treats the Earth as a kind of living organism, is as revolutionary as the Renaissance was 500 years ago when man displaced God at the centre of the world. It means that the survival of the Earth as a self-regulating ecosystem must take precedence over individual rights.
All hail Mother Gaia!
I think Ken should specify which "individual rights" he has in mind here.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Bugs in Japan
Japundit � Duck Season . . . Rabbit Season . . . BUG SEASON!
See the link above for a short discourse on the rather odd Japanese kids obsession with Rhino Beetles. I contributed comment number 8, by the way.
See the link above for a short discourse on the rather odd Japanese kids obsession with Rhino Beetles. I contributed comment number 8, by the way.
The open letter
Janet Albrechtsen in today's Australian rips into John Howard for backing down on the sale of the Snowy River scheme. Personally, I don't see it as an issue worth getting too worked up about either way.
Still, her column does have this paragraph which I can agree with:
But perhaps most irritating is the fact that Howard's backflip only encourages our collective letter writers to keep on writing. The apparent victory by the 57 assorted luvvies, political has-beens and political never-beens will make them think their sentimental jottings have policy substance. These letters are blots on the political landscape that invariably feature artistes trying to prove they can do more than memorise scripts by signing up to something drafted by retirees suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.
One hopes that their saccharine superficiality has been carried prominently by newspapers such as The Australian as a cute reminder that collectivists are now reduced to the pathetic business of writing collective letters. But after Howard's surrender last week, they received a fillip.
Yes, this "open letter" tactic has irritated for a long time. Firstly, how many people actually read them (or, more importantly, people who have not yet made up their mind about an issue.) Do they think that people care what actors and former diplomats and such like think about economic and other issues? I guess some people might if the actor has some particularly high public profile for, I don't know, niceness and the common touch. But once they are highly successful, people surely just see them as rich and idle enough to dabble in politics. And even if one of them could influence the public, joining in the collective letter dilutes their own input.
No, it always seems to be mostly about posturing from a political side that everyone already knows is nearly ubiquitous in the arts world. (And in the world of retired diplomats, too.)
Still, her column does have this paragraph which I can agree with:
But perhaps most irritating is the fact that Howard's backflip only encourages our collective letter writers to keep on writing. The apparent victory by the 57 assorted luvvies, political has-beens and political never-beens will make them think their sentimental jottings have policy substance. These letters are blots on the political landscape that invariably feature artistes trying to prove they can do more than memorise scripts by signing up to something drafted by retirees suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.
One hopes that their saccharine superficiality has been carried prominently by newspapers such as The Australian as a cute reminder that collectivists are now reduced to the pathetic business of writing collective letters. But after Howard's surrender last week, they received a fillip.
Yes, this "open letter" tactic has irritated for a long time. Firstly, how many people actually read them (or, more importantly, people who have not yet made up their mind about an issue.) Do they think that people care what actors and former diplomats and such like think about economic and other issues? I guess some people might if the actor has some particularly high public profile for, I don't know, niceness and the common touch. But once they are highly successful, people surely just see them as rich and idle enough to dabble in politics. And even if one of them could influence the public, joining in the collective letter dilutes their own input.
No, it always seems to be mostly about posturing from a political side that everyone already knows is nearly ubiquitous in the arts world. (And in the world of retired diplomats, too.)
Sad story
The Age has been following the very sad story about a Victorian hospital causing severe brain damage in a baby through a simple mistake. The reports are here and here.
The one month baby was taken to hospital with persistent vomiting. Then:
...two days later he was diagnosed with pyloric stenosis — a condition that blocks the flow of food into the small intestine — and was booked in for surgery.
About 1am on September 19, consultant surgeon Paddy Dewan assessed the baby, conducted a tutorial on the condition for Dr Foo and recommended intravenous fluids to treat dehydration. At this point the boy's treatment went tragically wrong. Instead of a solution containing 5 per cent glucose, he was given a concentration of 50 per cent glucose, which led to his severe brain damage.
Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo, who had responsibility for prescribing and recording the fluids, maintains the solution was specified by Professor Dewan but another doctor present at the time rejects the claim.
Nurses caring for the baby raised concerns about the solution, which was described as unusual, but were reassured by Dr Foo that it was correct. Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo might not have understood their concerns.
In todays paper, it is reported that Professor Dewar:
...said he ordered a solution of 5 per cent dextrose, or glucose, which was to be made up using the hospital's supply of a 50 per cent concentrate.
An alleged transcription error by resident doctor Lea Lee Foo meant the baby was given a 50 per cent solution, causing massive brain damage. Dr Shobha Iyer and Dr David Tickell allegedly failed to check the fluids or adequately examine the baby later in the day.
Professor Dewan said it was unbelievable that the error was not picked up by any of the staff, and a culture where junior staff were not encouraged to question orders was partly to blame.
A few things to note here: the nursing staff questioned the solution, which I am guessing must be very unusual for a baby. (Your comments reader Geoff?) The parents tried to warn the doctors that the baby was getting worse, but the other doctors missed the problem with the solution too.
All very sad. For me, the lesson seems to be to question hospital staff a lot, to the point of being a real pest, if things seem to be going badly.
The one month baby was taken to hospital with persistent vomiting. Then:
...two days later he was diagnosed with pyloric stenosis — a condition that blocks the flow of food into the small intestine — and was booked in for surgery.
About 1am on September 19, consultant surgeon Paddy Dewan assessed the baby, conducted a tutorial on the condition for Dr Foo and recommended intravenous fluids to treat dehydration. At this point the boy's treatment went tragically wrong. Instead of a solution containing 5 per cent glucose, he was given a concentration of 50 per cent glucose, which led to his severe brain damage.
Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo, who had responsibility for prescribing and recording the fluids, maintains the solution was specified by Professor Dewan but another doctor present at the time rejects the claim.
Nurses caring for the baby raised concerns about the solution, which was described as unusual, but were reassured by Dr Foo that it was correct. Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo might not have understood their concerns.
In todays paper, it is reported that Professor Dewar:
...said he ordered a solution of 5 per cent dextrose, or glucose, which was to be made up using the hospital's supply of a 50 per cent concentrate.
An alleged transcription error by resident doctor Lea Lee Foo meant the baby was given a 50 per cent solution, causing massive brain damage. Dr Shobha Iyer and Dr David Tickell allegedly failed to check the fluids or adequately examine the baby later in the day.
Professor Dewan said it was unbelievable that the error was not picked up by any of the staff, and a culture where junior staff were not encouraged to question orders was partly to blame.
A few things to note here: the nursing staff questioned the solution, which I am guessing must be very unusual for a baby. (Your comments reader Geoff?) The parents tried to warn the doctors that the baby was getting worse, but the other doctors missed the problem with the solution too.
All very sad. For me, the lesson seems to be to question hospital staff a lot, to the point of being a real pest, if things seem to be going badly.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
A whole new world of stupidity
New Scientist News - Abuse of prescription drugs fuelled by online recipes
It seems that abuse of prescription drugs is a big issue in the States (and no doubt it happens here too.) The internet allows users to quickly pass on information on how to abuse the drugs:
For instance, some sites suggest ways of tampering with skin patches designed to slowly release the opioid painkiller fentanyl. Users sometimes extract the drug from a patch to eat, inject or smoke. Yet a single patch can contain enough fentanyl to kill several people, according to toxicologist Bruce Goldberger from the University of Florida in Gainesville. "It's like Russian roulette - you just don't know how much drug you're going to get," he says....
Surveys by the US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) suggest the number of emergency hospital visits involving oxycodone misuse increased about 10-fold between 1996 and 2004. Estimates suggest that in 2004 there were more than 36,000 admissions involving misuse of the drug, now nicknamed "hillbilly heroin".
Drug companies have to go out of their way to make the medicine harder to abuse:
The good news is that some barriers to tampering seem to be genuinely effective. Disgruntled recreational users report online that one methylphenidate drug called Concerta, a stimulant used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is very difficult to crush and snort. One user's verdict reads: "No effects to very minimal with an irritated nose full of chunks."
While we are talking about abuse of things intended for other puproses, here's my semi-obscure piece of drug lore (found in some time ago in a Fortean Times article). If you eat enough nutmeg, you'll trip out.
Actually, this site claims its effects were relatively well known, with its users including Charlie Parker and Malcolm X (!)
This interested me particularly, as I recalled an old Carl Barks Uncle Scrooge comic that I read as a child about Uncle Scrooge's addiction to nutmeg tea. (It didn't make him trip out, though.) I remembered asking my father if he knew about nutmeg tea; he just laughed.
You can see some extracts of this comic here and here.
I presume that the hallucinogenic effects were unknown to Carl Barks. Why he would chose nutmeg tea is something of a mystery, though. (I am sure I read someone on the internet who suggested that maybe it meant that all of Uncle Scrooge's riches were just a hallucination caused by his drug habit.)
Of course, it goes without saying that I am against all forms of drug induced mood alteration, except for alcohol in moderation. My readership is so small that I think I can safely assume I am not spreading harmful ideas too widely.
It seems that abuse of prescription drugs is a big issue in the States (and no doubt it happens here too.) The internet allows users to quickly pass on information on how to abuse the drugs:
For instance, some sites suggest ways of tampering with skin patches designed to slowly release the opioid painkiller fentanyl. Users sometimes extract the drug from a patch to eat, inject or smoke. Yet a single patch can contain enough fentanyl to kill several people, according to toxicologist Bruce Goldberger from the University of Florida in Gainesville. "It's like Russian roulette - you just don't know how much drug you're going to get," he says....
Surveys by the US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) suggest the number of emergency hospital visits involving oxycodone misuse increased about 10-fold between 1996 and 2004. Estimates suggest that in 2004 there were more than 36,000 admissions involving misuse of the drug, now nicknamed "hillbilly heroin".
Drug companies have to go out of their way to make the medicine harder to abuse:
The good news is that some barriers to tampering seem to be genuinely effective. Disgruntled recreational users report online that one methylphenidate drug called Concerta, a stimulant used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is very difficult to crush and snort. One user's verdict reads: "No effects to very minimal with an irritated nose full of chunks."
While we are talking about abuse of things intended for other puproses, here's my semi-obscure piece of drug lore (found in some time ago in a Fortean Times article). If you eat enough nutmeg, you'll trip out.
Actually, this site claims its effects were relatively well known, with its users including Charlie Parker and Malcolm X (!)
This interested me particularly, as I recalled an old Carl Barks Uncle Scrooge comic that I read as a child about Uncle Scrooge's addiction to nutmeg tea. (It didn't make him trip out, though.) I remembered asking my father if he knew about nutmeg tea; he just laughed.
You can see some extracts of this comic here and here.
I presume that the hallucinogenic effects were unknown to Carl Barks. Why he would chose nutmeg tea is something of a mystery, though. (I am sure I read someone on the internet who suggested that maybe it meant that all of Uncle Scrooge's riches were just a hallucination caused by his drug habit.)
Of course, it goes without saying that I am against all forms of drug induced mood alteration, except for alcohol in moderation. My readership is so small that I think I can safely assume I am not spreading harmful ideas too widely.
A reminder of the Saddam regime
Graves reveal clues to Saddam brutality - World - theage.com.au
From the above article:
"There are 200 sites registered with the Ministry of Human Rights. Witnesses led us to these sites," said chief investigating judge Raed al-Juhi of the Iraqi High Tribunal.
"These witnesses stated that some vehicles had taken people on the highway to somewhere and brought back no one. Our formal documents refer to over 100,000 victims (from 1991)," Judge Juhi said. "The unofficial information we have, that is not documented until now, refers to more than 180,000 victims."
From the above article:
"There are 200 sites registered with the Ministry of Human Rights. Witnesses led us to these sites," said chief investigating judge Raed al-Juhi of the Iraqi High Tribunal.
"These witnesses stated that some vehicles had taken people on the highway to somewhere and brought back no one. Our formal documents refer to over 100,000 victims (from 1991)," Judge Juhi said. "The unofficial information we have, that is not documented until now, refers to more than 180,000 victims."
On the nature of Islam
Good old Archbishop George Pell. The Sydney Morning Herald today calls him "the country's most influential catholic", which is surely a bit of an overstatement. He is far too much of a straight talking conservative for that. I also suspect that a small majority of Catholics here (and in most western countries) are of the soft left variety now.
Anyway, he is quoted in the SMH today as saying:
Australia had not been much changed by the rising Islamic threat after September 11, 2001, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, said. But this could change depending "on how many terrorist attacks" Islamic extremists could "bring off successfully". "The million-dollar question" was whether intolerance was a modern distortion of Islam or arose out of internal logic. "It's difficult to find periods of tolerance in Islam. I'm not saying they're not there, but a good deal of what is asserted is mythical."
He obviously is not in the Karen Armstrong camp. She gave an interview in Salon recently and had this to say about the Koran and violence:
[Interviewer]: Sam Harris, in his book "The End of Faith," has seven very densely packed pages of nothing but quotations from the Quran with just this message. "God's curse be upon the infidels"; "slay them wherever you find them"; "fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." And Sam Harris' point is that the Muslim suicide bombings are not the aberration of Islam. They are the message of Islam.
[Armstrong]: Well, that's simply not true. He's taken parts of those texts and omitted their conclusions, which say fighting is hateful for you. You have to do it if you're attacked, as Mohammed was being attacked at the time when that verse was revealed. But forgiveness is better for you. Peace is better. But when we're living in a violent society, our religion becomes violent, too. Religion gets sucked in and becomes part of the problem. But to isolate these texts as though they expressed the whole of the tradition is very mischievous and dangerous at this time when we are in danger of polarizing people on both sides. And this kind of inflammatory talk, say about Islam, is convincing Muslims all over the world who are not extremists that the West is incurably Islamophobic and will never respect their traditions. I think it's irresponsible at this time.
[Interviewer]: But many people would say you can't just pick out the peaceful and loving passages of the sacred scriptures. There are plenty of other passages that are frightening.
[Armstrong]: I would say there are more passages in the Bible than the Quran that are dedicated to violence. I think what all religious people ought to do is to look at their own sacred traditions. Not just point a finger at somebody else's, but our own. Christians should look long and hard at the Book of Revelation. And they should look at those passages in the Pentateuch that speak of the destruction of the enemy.
I think Armstrong is being rather disingenuous here though; it seems she is pretending for a moment that the New Testament, which after all is the modern basis of Christianity, doesn't represent a dramatic change in the view of violence from that contained in parts of the Old Testament. (The Book of Revelation is in its own weird category of its own, and there was considerable disagreement centuries ago over whether it should be included in the Bible at all. Anyway, it's not as if Catholicism in my lifetime has ever paid it much attention. I suppose American fundamentalism pays it more attention, and this form of Christianity is what seems to annoy Armstrong the most.)
As for the correct reading of the Koran, here I am somewhat at a loss to have an independent opinion. The practical problem is, from my cursory look at the book, it seems unreadable as narrative. (I have the same reaction to the Book of Mormon. It seems to come with the territory when the book is claimed to be a direct and unalterable dictation from God. He needs an editor badly.) The Wikipedia entry on the Koran goes some way to explaining why it is so unreadable.
So what does a conservative like me do? Side with the conservative Archbishop, of course! Put it this way: I suspect he may be closer to the truth and that Armstrong, in her project to rehabilitate all religions into one (read the rest of her interview), probably sides with the softer interpretions of Islamic history because it suits her ideas better.
Anyway, he is quoted in the SMH today as saying:
Australia had not been much changed by the rising Islamic threat after September 11, 2001, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, said. But this could change depending "on how many terrorist attacks" Islamic extremists could "bring off successfully". "The million-dollar question" was whether intolerance was a modern distortion of Islam or arose out of internal logic. "It's difficult to find periods of tolerance in Islam. I'm not saying they're not there, but a good deal of what is asserted is mythical."
He obviously is not in the Karen Armstrong camp. She gave an interview in Salon recently and had this to say about the Koran and violence:
[Interviewer]: Sam Harris, in his book "The End of Faith," has seven very densely packed pages of nothing but quotations from the Quran with just this message. "God's curse be upon the infidels"; "slay them wherever you find them"; "fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." And Sam Harris' point is that the Muslim suicide bombings are not the aberration of Islam. They are the message of Islam.
[Armstrong]: Well, that's simply not true. He's taken parts of those texts and omitted their conclusions, which say fighting is hateful for you. You have to do it if you're attacked, as Mohammed was being attacked at the time when that verse was revealed. But forgiveness is better for you. Peace is better. But when we're living in a violent society, our religion becomes violent, too. Religion gets sucked in and becomes part of the problem. But to isolate these texts as though they expressed the whole of the tradition is very mischievous and dangerous at this time when we are in danger of polarizing people on both sides. And this kind of inflammatory talk, say about Islam, is convincing Muslims all over the world who are not extremists that the West is incurably Islamophobic and will never respect their traditions. I think it's irresponsible at this time.
[Interviewer]: But many people would say you can't just pick out the peaceful and loving passages of the sacred scriptures. There are plenty of other passages that are frightening.
[Armstrong]: I would say there are more passages in the Bible than the Quran that are dedicated to violence. I think what all religious people ought to do is to look at their own sacred traditions. Not just point a finger at somebody else's, but our own. Christians should look long and hard at the Book of Revelation. And they should look at those passages in the Pentateuch that speak of the destruction of the enemy.
I think Armstrong is being rather disingenuous here though; it seems she is pretending for a moment that the New Testament, which after all is the modern basis of Christianity, doesn't represent a dramatic change in the view of violence from that contained in parts of the Old Testament. (The Book of Revelation is in its own weird category of its own, and there was considerable disagreement centuries ago over whether it should be included in the Bible at all. Anyway, it's not as if Catholicism in my lifetime has ever paid it much attention. I suppose American fundamentalism pays it more attention, and this form of Christianity is what seems to annoy Armstrong the most.)
As for the correct reading of the Koran, here I am somewhat at a loss to have an independent opinion. The practical problem is, from my cursory look at the book, it seems unreadable as narrative. (I have the same reaction to the Book of Mormon. It seems to come with the territory when the book is claimed to be a direct and unalterable dictation from God. He needs an editor badly.) The Wikipedia entry on the Koran goes some way to explaining why it is so unreadable.
So what does a conservative like me do? Side with the conservative Archbishop, of course! Put it this way: I suspect he may be closer to the truth and that Armstrong, in her project to rehabilitate all religions into one (read the rest of her interview), probably sides with the softer interpretions of Islamic history because it suits her ideas better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)