Richard Dawkins Misquoted By Murdoch-Owned Newspaper

You cannot trust what you read in a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Times of London is running this false headline:  Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI. The newspaper erroneously reports:

RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.

Dawkins writes that this is untrue:

Needless to say, I did NOT say “I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI” or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope’s proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my ‘Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope’ article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson’s subsequent ‘Put the Pope in the Dock’ article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn’t end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn’t cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope’s visit, let alone pay for it.

SciFi Weekend: Educating Amy on Doctor Who; Desmond Seeks Penny on Lost; Sheldon Cooper Gets A Rematch With the Evil Wil Wheaton on Big Bang Theory

I won’t give away any details about this week’s episode of Doctor Who, The Beast Below since it has not aired yet on BBC America, but those who don’t want any information on upcoming stories might turn around (as The Doctor suggested while undressing last week).  It is a solid episode, but felt more like a Davies episode with some Moffat touches as opposed to any of the greater Moffat scripts of the past. The relationship between The Doctor and companion Amy Pond (played by Karen Gillan) is far more important than any specifics of the plot. The Doctor began the episode trying to teach Amy but, perhaps because The Doctor is still not fully himself after the regeneration, it is Amy who wound up noticing something which was missed by The Doctor. We are also given hints that we will be seeing more related to Amy’s back story.

Next week The Doctor helps Winston Churchill in a World War II England which is packed with Daleks, who appear to be on the Allied side. Here is another trailer released by the BBC which is different from the one which aired at the end of last night’s episode:

I’ll also note that search engine hits for old posts on Karen Gillan remain at record levels, especially those in which she is either scantily clad or in a bikini. The majority of hits are coming from the U.K. but there is also growing interest in her in the United States. It will be interesting to see if this increases dramatically after the BBC America premiere on April 17.For now I am forced to host the pictures of Karen Gillan on another site and increase  caching, which often leads to funny things with the blog.

The Desmond episodes of Lost seem to be essential to follow the mythology of the series. Hot Flashes had Desmond moving between the two realities as opposed to through time as in previous Desmond episodes. This episode confirmed what I had wondered since the first episode of the season when Juliet told Sawyer that “it worked.” Near death experiences do allow characters to see the other universe.

Increasingly we are seeing  that the characters in the alternative universe are lacking some of their problems, but a key difference is often that they are also lacking the person they love. (One case where the situation is different is with Sun and Jin,who are having an affair but are not married). Perhaps Lost is as much about love as it is about destiny and good versus evil.

Desmond is without Penny in the alternative universe, which seems to be totally wrong. He seeks out Penny after having flashes of his other life in both a near-death experience and when having an MRI. It has been clear that Eloise knows far more about the island than most of the other characters. This is true of the Eloise of the alternative universe who warns Desmond to “stop looking for it” when she sees that he is looking for Penny and other aspects of his other life.

The episode ends with a curious sequence. First Desmond expressed his willingness to help Charles Widmore back on the island, after experiencing life in the other universe. However this might be due to a change in Desmond as opposed to a meaningful decision based upon what he has learned. After he winds up with Sayid, Desmond is also willing to follow Sayid instead. Meanwhile in the alternative universe the big question is what Desmond wants to show the other passengers on Oceanic 815. Will they all learn that this is not the universe that they were meant to be in, and how will they respond to this information?

Sheldon Cooper gets a rematch with the Evil Wil Wheaton on The Big Bang Theory. The good Wil Wheaton has provided this link to a preview of the episode via Twitter. Jim Parsons has also discussed the episode, The Wheaton Recurrence, which will air Monday night:

So how does Sheldon feel about that? “He’s very unhappy,” Jim Parsons said during a recent conversation on the set of the hit CBS comedy. On the other hand, Parson added, “I was happy to see Wil Wheaton because he’s very nice, and easy to work with. It’s funny, there’s absolutely no love lost between the two of them, at least on Sheldon’s end, and it’s really interesting to treat such a nice person that way – take after take of disdain or just staring. It’s one of those things where, a lot of the time you get here, maybe you don’t see each other [before filming], and we would go hours where that was the only communication we would have. I would leave the set that day and realize that I’d literally not said a nice word to him because I hadn’t seen him outside of the scene. So that was weird.”

Parsons was quite complimentary about Wheaton’s presence on the show (which this time occurs at a bowling alley), saying, “He’s such a wonderful foil. It was just perfect, because of course one of the main enemies in Sheldon Cooper’s life is such a nice person – with all the real evil in the world, he’s gone after Wil Wheaton. I think the other people on the list were largely make-believe if I remember correctly, like Darth Vader. The things Sheldon will concern himself with and then not concern himself with amaze me. Love isn’t worth the time of day, but a 20-year-old hate grudge against Wil Wheaton is worth exploring in a couple of different episodes.”

I discussed Wil Wheaton’s first appearance on The Big Bang Theory here, when the evil Wil Wheaton pulled a Johnny Fairplay move, and previously reported on the upcoming rematch here.

Why Mike Huckabee Is Not Fit To Govern

I would consider this statement to be an example of why Mike Huckabee is unfit to lead the country but realize different people will see this differently. This stems from fundamentally different values. Those of us who hold liberal values  defend an individual’s right to live their life as they see fit. In contrast conservatives, while engaging in Orwellian distortions of words such as freedom, prefer to use the power of government and religious institutions to tell people how to live.

Mike Huckabee believes that gay people are unfit to adopt children and believes that gay couples shouldn’t be able to get married because it would be like accommodating drug habits of addicts. At least he does believe an atheist is fit to be president. This is from an interview in the College of New Jersey’s magazine The Perspective:

He continues to oppose any government recognition of same-sex relationships. Even civil unions are “not necessary,” Huckabee said. “I think there’s been a real level of being disingenuous on the part of the gay and lesbian community with their goal of civil unions,” he alleged, referring to LGBT activists who first claimed that their goal in several states was to enact civil unions, but subsequently launched efforts to implement full marriage rights.

Huckabee went on to draw parallels between homosexuality and other lifestyles that are considered by some to be morally aberrant. “You don’t go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal,” he said of same-sex marriage. “That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them.”

He also affirmed support for a law in Arkansas that prohibits same-sex couples from becoming adoptive or foster parents. “I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family,” Huckabee said. “And always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults.”

“Children are not puppies,” he continued. “This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?”

In what may come as a surprise for some, Huckabee agreed that an atheist could be fit to serve as president. “I’d rather have an honest atheist than a dishonest religious person,” he said.

“It’s better to have a person who says, ‘Look, I just don’t believe, and that’s where my honest position happens to be,’” he said. “I’m frankly more OK with that than a person who says, ‘Oh, I am very much a Christian. I very much love God.’ And then they live as if they are atheists, as if they have no moral groundings at all. That’s more troubling.”

“I think it’s nice if a person believes in God,” Huckabee said. “I’d hate to think somebody was making decisions who thought that he couldn’t be higher than himself.”

I am surprised to see Huckabee’s comments on an atheist being fit to be president. After all, as is even stipulated in the Constitution, there should not be a religious test for office. However, while someone is certainly legally qualified to be president, someone who has such discriminatory views towards a portion of the country is not ethically fit to govern.

Questioning Simplistic Answers In Health Care Policy

We often hear simplistic explanations as to why health care is so expensive. Conservatives dwell on malpractice which, while reform would be desirable, is only responsible for a small portion of health care costs. Others argue that the problem is with unnecessary procedures. While I don’t doubt that there are some unnecessary procedures performed, I doubt this is the real answer. I see far more examples of under-utilization as many people either do not have access to care or their physician fails to provide all recommended care for chronic diseases.

Mike the Mad Biologist shares this view, questioning the study upon the belief that the problem is unnecessary procedures in some areas:

First, unnecessary procedures do not appear to be driving cost differences. What is driving cost differences? Price gouging. That is, certain hospital systems and medical practices have de facto monopolies, either through consumer loyality or market share. For instance, in 2000, Tufts Health Insurance (this is not associated with the university), in response to Partners HealthCare’ (which includes the Harvard hospitals) demands for much higher reimbursement rates, announced they would no longer include these hospitals. After a day, Tufts backed down. This wasn’t about unnecessary care: Partners simply wanted to charge more for the same care. This type of thing is still happening: now Tufts Hospitals is butting heads with Blue Cross.

The second problem, as I’ve discussed before, is that the claims of unnecessary procedures, to a considerable extent, are overhyped, at least in terms of costs*. That assumption is based on an analysis that conflated high-income low-need patients with low-income high-need patients. In other words, the supposed evidence that regional disparities in costs reflect unnecessary procedures didn’t take into account the role of poverty.

Sure, we should not provide unnecessary care. But much of the problem seems to revolve around anti-trust and poverty. We need to fix those things.