Tomfoolery Blog

Archive for the ‘right wing’ Category

I’ve learned something about the pseudo operatic rock band Muse that is slightly depressing: they appear to be supporters of Alex Jones’ conspiracy sites www.infowars.com and www.prisonplanet.com.

The evidence? They link to those sites from the Links page of their own website.

Of course, Alex Jones’ lot have pounced on it like an endorsement from the Queen or something.

Is this a cause for concern? Well, no. Muse, like many other bands, have a reputation for being eccentrics. The page is pretty well hidden and not immediately accessible from their front page. Also, it doesn’t exactly jump out at you, the links are merely entitled “Red Pill” (a reference to a scene from the Matrix). In my opinion, it’s nothing to worry about so far, but let’s see what Muse do next.

It’s election time! I’m supporting the Lib Dems because of their evidence based policies, but what about the other parties? To give scientists an idea of the performance of the various parties, the Guardian have got some of the finest minds in the country (Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh and David Nutt, to name but a few) to pose a few questions on science policy. Today it was the turn of UKIP.

UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) has fashioned itself as the party of the right-wing “Little Englander”, the type of person who likes to hide away in a hovel pretending the rest of the world doesn’t exist. They are very anti-european, and members of the party are known supporters of homeopathy.

So how did they fare when asked about issues of science? As you might expect, the answers from their climate change spokesperson Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (obviously a man with a firm grip on reality) are decidedly lacking.

When asked about science funding, they say that they would stop all funding into climate change research. They plant themselves firmly in the climate change denialist camp, wanting a judge to hear evidence from ‘both sides’. The ‘both sides’ argument comes straight from the creationist movement, whereby science is pitted against superstition. So, having insulted science, they continue.

When asked about ‘placebo’ treatments (an obvious reference to homeopathy) they say that they should be funded on the NHS, despite ‘scientific’ proof. They continue to show a callous disregard for science, and I can’t imagine they are making any friends amongst scientists.

Worryingly, they see nothing wrong with the UK libel laws, which shows just how out of touch UKIP are.

In response to drug policy, they come up with a very odd answer:

Scientific evidence, as well as factual evidence in relation to the particulars of each case, is of course necessary in formulating a responsible policy on the availability of recreational drugs.

This shows further contempt for and misunderstanding of the scientific method. What on Earth could they mean by ‘scientific evidence’ and ‘factual evidence’? It just paints a further picture of a little man in a hovel, not just in hatred of the rest of the world, but terrified of ‘the scientists’, men in white coats bent double over their strange experiments, cackling maniacally as they mix their noxious chemicals. Forget the scientists, UKIP know the facts!

Their response to the question of stem cell research does nothing to dispel this image. They say that stem cell research would be fine if stem cells weren’t ‘obtained from very small children’. This ignorance of reality is staggering. Of course, stem cells aren’t taken from children, they are taken from embryos. If you can’t work out the difference, I can only assume you are some kind of religious fundamentalist.

So, in conclusion, UKIP have no clue when it comes to science, and they appear to show a complete disregard for the scientific method. If you want some relief from their nonsense, I suggest you check out the blog of Dr Evan Harris MP, a Lib Dem who stands for evidence based policy. Vote Lib Dem!

I’m a huge believer in human rights, and I am proud to say that I live in a country whose government tries to stop discrimination on the grounds of race,  gender, religion, or sexuality.

Until today. In court, the Catholic adoption society Catholic Care won the right to ignore the Sexual Orientation Regulations and see homosexual couples as unfit parents. This was opposed by the Charities Commission, and thanks to the ruling by Mr Justice Briggs, they will have a legal bill of about £100,000 to stump up.

Let’s take a minute to consider this: a group is allowed to flout the rules because it goes against their religion. This sets a hugely dangerous precedence. If Catholic Care are allowed to do this, where will it stop? In the Bible, homosexuality is punishable by death, so shall we let Catholics off murder charges if they kill a gay man? Obviously, this is slightly unlikely, but the point remains. Why should a religious group be able to pick and choose the laws it adheres to?

In better news, the case of Constance McMillen has a very happy ending. Constance McMillen is a lesbian who wanted to take her girlfriend to her high school prom at the Itawamba County Agricultural High School in Mississippi. Being the deep south of the USA, the school board were totally against it. First they tried to ban Constance, then when the ACLU got involved, they just banned the prom, no doubt trying to turn Constance into a social pariah.

Well, a couple of humanists have stepped up and funded the prom! How about that for a smack in the face of bigotry?

If you’ve got some spare time, perusing the comments of a random Daily Mail article is always good for a laugh. I find them even better if the articles are genuinely divisive, such as this one on homeopathy.

Right now, the big story in the UK is the current activity of Jon Venables, who killed 2-year-old James Bulgar when he himself was just ten. Of course, there is a huge debate over whether the likes of Jon Venables should live with their childhood crimes for life, or whether the justice system should provide a genuine attempt to reform the offender, and allow them to lead a new life.

Comments on this Daily Mail article range from one extreme to the other, but this comment in particular warps the space time continuum into a new dimension of idiocy:

They may be the best two sentences ever committed to dailymail.co.uk.

It seems that Pauline Hanson, one time member of the Australian parliament, has had enough of life down under and is on her way to the UK. When in parliament she was famed for her right wing anti-immigration policies, and she was accused of racism.  Apparently, in 2007 she called for an end to Muslim immigration into Australia to protect ‘Australian culture’.

Personally, I find these anti-immigration policies ill-informed and abhorrent. However, she does raise an interesting question: what is ‘Australian culture’? If you think you can help me, please leave a comment!