The placebo effect is a demonstrably reproducible and reliable example of 'mind over matter'. More simply, an effect not attributable to a known substance, stimulus, belief and so on co-occurring with the observed effect.

Not only is it fascinating in it's manifestations but it is a valuable tool in science, serving as a control and pulling impressive stunts itself. For example when it comes to pain relief, as reinforced in this study, whether one receives acupuncture or not isn't important. The observed effect is due to the belief one is or is not.

In this episode we look at the realities behind the very recent 'ancient Chinese medicine'. Mao's revolution gave a shot in the arm to outmoded techniques - including human labour to successfully combat parasites. Herbal remedies filled the void left by the loss of scientists and research. Only after Mao's direct intervention in the 1960's did it gain popularity along with his Barefoot Doctors. These 'peasant medicos' lasted until the late 1990's as the rise of industrialisation drove doctors toward cities, leaving provincial China without adequate health care. In an unusual twist Shamans with an entirely primitive approach tried to corner the 'market'.

The shamans, they all have their own deities, says Xie Jinbao, who works as a doctor in the village of Muye, Danian township. They call the deities and when they talk to them, they are in a trance. Sometimes they demand to kill a chicken or even a cow to find out about an illness".

In Muye, a village of 1,200 people deep in the mountains where no car has ever reached, there is a thriving community of six witch-doctors. What can one person like me do against six of them, Xie shrugs.

His worn-out doctor's bag is packed with measles vaccines. Xie, 27, is on a two-hour treck by foot from the township hospital to Muye where he is scheduled to vaccinate children. If it were not for the children's vaccinations, the peasants wouldn't come to me at all, confesses Xie. They have known my father who was a 'barefoot doctor' for years. They know me, but they still go to the witch-doctors.

And it is not because of the money, Xie says. He would charge them just four yuan for a consultation and a simple medicine, while the village shaman will ask for a meal on top of his fee. They simply don't trust me, he concludes.

To the villagers, Xie represents a health system they have learned to distrust and shun. The disillusionment grew gradually, hidden from the eyes of the outside world which had applauded the success of Mao Zedong's public health campaigns in the first decades after the communist revolution.

With the collapse of Mao's peasant communes in the late 1970s came the collapse of rural health care. The state withdrew from the rural world where it had acted as a provider of free preventive care and had guaranteed access for treatment to everyone. [Rest here].

There is a the paucity of Chinese references about acupuncture until a few centuries ago. Early Chinese advocates and commentators stressed acupuncture is only beneficial for those "who believe it works", and even as a medicinal adjunct - much less a treatement - it had limited value. Images and claims around it's use in major surgery are bogus. It does sometimes play a minor role in later pain relief - as a placebo. The role of herbal medicine no doubt met many ailments with ephedrine, opiates, cannabis, caffeine, tea, hallucinogens, roots - such as Ginseng - leaves, flowers, pollen, stems, bark, seeds, thorns and more of a huge variety of species up for grabs. Ten Herbal Myths offers a unique perspective. Then as now, it is growing technique that dictated potency. Could variations in thousands of growing modes and millions of doses consumed within TCM be less of a worry than say, hydroponically grown "super potent' cannabis strains?

Drug companies do have an interest in China primarily due to it's climate, and preponderance of herbal flora. How serious this is, is ambiguous. Problems arise with herbal medicine due to side effects with - for example - St. John's Wort effecting both SSRI's and prescribed pain medication. In reality, modern 'ancient Chinese medicine' is an unproven, expensive and potentially dangerous practice. Despite official sounding bodies 'overseeing' practitioners of contemporary techniques the potential for abuse is high. After all, the client agrees to pay for nothing.

Reflexology is a contradiction as it is. Qi is said to be the flow of energy around the body or the material of 'information-energy'. Meridians are the pathways via which qi travels. Indeed the 'running of qi' is the sole purpose of meridians. Even though they have never been found, nor has qi or for that matter acupuncture points. Yet relflexology manages to get blood flowing along meridians. Whether with qi, without or as a hideous love child of blood and qi - the Qimoglobin Energy perhaps - isn't clear. Is that allowed? I wonder if the 'ancients' would have frowned upon it... had they existed?

Sadly with ideas such as tiger penises linked to increased libido, many species are in constant danger. Recently, Harriet Hall M. D. wrote Puncturing The Acupuncture Myth, generating some stimulating feedback; “twaddle wrapped in swaddling rhetoric.” We touch on this piece also and go over some of the testimony within, as to how gullible we consumers are to vague, expensive and proven to be useless "treatments" with a perpetually positive spin on them.

The moral to this myth is to be aware that all TCM is generally safe but unproven. It's benefits are mostly 'felt' as placebo and in the main one may safely say it's a pointless expense. On the other hand getting a little more attention than traditional medicos deliver may be just what the doctor ordered. The opportunity for easy money here makes many areas ripe for abuse. It won't hurt you to part with cash, but do be aware the "power to change" is perhaps the choice to change your mind about the validity of such baseless and bogus practices.

Articles noted are here.
Music; Garageband

Gags.
56 min
15 MB

As the USA heads toward another election the virtual enslavement of candidates to "the religious problem" is frankly disturbing. Yet whilst we associate "Christian Fundamentalism" with the religious right the issue isn't quite so simple. "Fundamentalism" and the "Religious Right" are not the same creature and it's wise to be certain of where threats to democratic values arise on "home soil".

Original settlers brought with them an Apocalyptic vision that assumed Armageddon would rage at New England. These Protestant fundamentalists were fleeing religious persecution in England and Holland in particular. Following the failure of Oliver Cromwells 1658 Revolution these settlers puritanical hopes turned to New England.

These new "chosen people" became the citizens of the United States who would enjoy "a thousand years" of religious and civil liberty. Their version of todays Neoconservative ever present enemy was Old World Catholicism and the tyranny of English rule. It is this residual aspect to the American psyche that leads to absurd claims the USA is founded on Christian values, that has tainted USA foreign policy for centuries and is rabidly exploited by the politically motivated extremist "religious" right today.

This episode Firesnake looks at just which aspects of fundamentalism pervade USA politics and have had the shockingly corrosive effects on "a once great nation". Contrary to mainstream perception it is only the modern Pentecostal and Evangelical movement that has the ear of the highest office in the US. Most fundamentalist groups are disinterested in "worldly affairs" and care little for political posturing. Pentecostalism in all it's multi-coloured, surround sound, flashy dental, iron-haired glory, is not traditional fundamental Pentecostalism. It attracts scorn and disdain for its "heretical" and theologically offensive make it up as you go, Charismata riddled magic working trickery from almost all other denominations.

We look critically at the demonstrably fallacious claims that the USA is founded on Christian values or that the Founding Fathers were "Christian" if even religious at all. Not only have the modern Pentecostals misrepresented the deeper driving forces of Christian fundamentalism - resulting in appalling erosion of educational standards, general knowledge and sound public health policy - but have practically slandered everything the Founding Fathers fought to keep out of USA politics. Deists and atheists these men have left an utterly unambiguous opinion of religion behind and as no others before or since, articulated the very malignancy of enforced conformity to a mode of thought. Human reason, not religion is what motivated these men and what "founded" the USA value system.

The bizarre erection of mammoth crosses and anti science billboards in the USA punctuates the steady downfall of their economy, knowledge base, world power and international respect. Perhaps John Adams' quote will at the last come back to haunt the charlatans who mislead and offend those on either side of belief with such grotesque spectacles.

Looking closely it seems we have long past the time of accepting this is "about religion" - something we should tolerate. Today the effect of US foreign policy cannot be ignored [see table below]. As the cry of "God did it" continues to rise, consonant with an apocalyptic and revolutionary - not evolutionary - approach to global challenges, every human alive is subject to the whims of this Divine Guesswork.

We look at the disparity in emphasis placed on Obama's "minister scandal" compared to Palins own "sermons" and her close buddy Pastor who insists Jesus wants his followers to die, and indeed one cannot follow Jesus without wishing to die for him. Jesus, Palins pastor claims would be "in War mode" if alive today [and was during his life, anyway] just as every good Christian must now be. It is this very same intellectual repugnance that exposes this trendoid approach to scamming ones fellow citizens and that draws the condemnation of most of Christian USA and fundamentalist USA.

From Alaskan Pipelines to dying in Iraq, Palin "can only do so much" unless her followers are "right with God". Also we examine the absurdity and hypocrisy of Creationist Sarah Palin and wonder if she solves, what was becomming, McCain's Evangelical Problem. Perhaps those obsessed with seeing a woman in the White House care little for the character beneath the skin. Yes, the new star of female rights who miraculously expunged the "pregnancy scandal" whilst pledging herself as a pious, chaste, "servant of God", has fooled the devout already.

Can the USA afford to make the same mistake again? Well, in the humble Firesnake Holeplex we do have an opinion... or two.

History of the use of early Apocalyptic Psyche' in US Foreign Policy

- Source: The Chosen Nation: The Influence of Religion on U.S. Foreign Policy. John B. Judis [page 3].

Some quotes supporting the 'christian heritage' of the Founding Fathers:

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813.

"Lighthouses are more useful than Churches"
-- Benjamin Franklin

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
--John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

"Man is fed with fables through life, and leaves it in the belief he knows something of what has been passing, when in truth he has known nothing but what has passed under his own eye."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 1823

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
--James Madison, letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774

". . . no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
--Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter, 1787

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see, but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity, though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
--Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790

All references touched on are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags.
52 min. 20 MB.

Al-Qaeda has come under criticism from noted jihadist prosecutors and thinkers within Islam itself. The indiscriminate killing of Muslims has drawn vocal contempt from Bin Ladens "battlefield comrade", Mu'man Bin Othman. He joins a growing list of noted radical clerics and revered jihadi authors to attack what is an inescapable religious hypocrisy, within al-Qaedas strategy.

The compelling dynamic for nations facing the threat of Islamic Extremism, is that these same critics have contributed to the rise of violent jihad. Bin Othman is a former Libyan jihadist, survivor of the Afghanistan war with communists and has attended al-Qaedas Afghani summits. Sayyid Imam produced the edicts al-Qaeda leaders have used to motivate young Muslims and design their strategy. Known as "Dr. Fadl" the noted ideologue has renunciated violent jihad with specific reference to his mentor: Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. Arguing against resorting to violence and stressing rebellion against a Muslim leader is forbidden, Sayyid Imam wrote directly to Muslim youth from jail in Egypt:

The "de-redicalisation" of Muslim youth and Islamic extremists in this way is based upon fundamental Islamic jurisprudence. Whilst there is no doubt radical Islamic schoolers are concerned over the levels of violence, they are equally concerned about the Koranic doctrine as it pertains to prosecuting a Just and Holy Jihad. Actual violent jihad is traditionally arrived at only after considerable introspection. It is this concept of internal struggle, or jihad, that underscored years of fierce clerical debate within Islam prior to 9/11. Bin Othman himself remains a strident critic of Western policies from his London base and includes the UK government in his blame for the rise in potential British Muslim extremists. He tells BBC security correspondent, Frank Gardner [audio here]:

He's referring to al-Qaeda "mastermind" Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, who has a personal knack for usurping the jurisprudence of jihad prosecution. We've watched him "mature" since taking the role of spokesman "to the world" for the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, as we'll hear, after they assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981, for failing to wage a Just jihad and breaching fundamental Islamic rules. He's no doubt the real brains behind al-Qaeda atrocities - their Islamic strategy - but the point on which this turns is the fact that "Islamically", these techniques lack authoritative credit. The crisis for Islamic purists is that alienation and oppression motivate todays jihadists; not theology for which they have little time. Al-Qaeda is exploiting this for their own ends whilst insulting Islamic law, as Sayyid Imam clearly states above.

Bin Othmans logic is quite right. However this does not mean those facing possible attacks from Islam are significantly safer. Nor does it criticise indiscriminate killing of Westerners in Islam or elsewhere. The killing of infidels is entirely sanctioned and permitted by Islamic jurisprudence. Yet nothing in Koranic doctrine, the Hadiths or centuries of in depth and complex debate on how to kill the enemies of Islam, sanctifies killing Muslims. Ex Muslims most certainly, but not true Muslims. Insurgents have been more than vocal in accusing those they kill of being either infidels or fatally flawed in interpreting Islam - using revised archaic Sharia Law in particular.

Furthermore, the attraction of violent jihad has arguably polluted the pool of emerging influential identities with rank amateurs. Increased "conversion" and immigration has lent a vocal and savvy twist to centuries old dictates that embellish only violence. From the life of the prophet, to the 1000 year expansion of Islam via violent jihad to modern day authors who inspired the surge in radicalism, there is no precedent. More so, there is no chance of Martyrdom for a jihadist killed in the act of killing Muslims [believers in Islam]. Islamic law is clear on whom Allah deems a threat to the expansion of the Ummah and how to treat them. It doesn't take much empathy to see that senior clerics would perceive, for example, Muslim rappers in ski masks bragging about 9/11, threatening torture and death in the nations that educate, protect and support them, as little more than opportunistic groupies.

Many Islamists do want a Just jihad and a Just peace. But only as it applies to Islamic law and only in the pursuit of global peace under the Islamic government: the Ummah. This episode we look at exactly what this issue is about and why it is not a random fortuitous event from which the West can expect "justice". We also again raise the issue of Western misunderstanding of Islam, this time focusing on the xenophobic view multicultural nations often hold toward their Muslim citizens. Whilst the threat of Islamic extremism must be taken seriously, the fundamental interpretation of any religion cannot be ignored. Are we perhaps ignoring the problems of other religious fundamentalism and exaggerating that of Islamic fundamentalism? Seven years since 9/11 just which fundamentalists have actively or passively undermined democratic processes?

British historian Hilaire Belloc’s “The Great Heresies” written in 1938:

All articles mentioned are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags,

32 min.
14 MB.

Dedicated to Ken Bigley: 1942 - 2004.

Sharia Law has won a victory over human rights within the UN Human Rights Council, and sanctioned by the same council. In fairness to President Doru Romulus Costea, he asked that it be recorded he'd never been in a more uncomfortable situation - including when his own statements as Council President were "challenged point blank".

We cover the audio of relevant proceedings for the 8th session of the human rights council - June 2nd to 18, 2008. Webcasts may be accessed here. Driven aggressively by Egyptian delegate Amr Roshdy Hassan, who claimed Islam will not be crucified in this council, this covert jihad on the vile idea that humans - much less us soon to be gone Harbi - having more rights than Allah was fully supported by Pakistan and Iran. As council President noted it may be seen by some in the Council as "a preemptive move" on allowed statements, or as a mater of religious debate. The topic studiously avoided was the scope of the Vienna Declaration and programme of action; human rights.

This episode Firesnake looks at Islam, Sharia, human rights, human nature, Iranian hanging of drug users. We note the lack of any response from the I.N.C.B., the UNODC and global NGO's who heard the plea for help from Middle Eastern NGO's, just weeks ago. The I.N.C.B. remains silent over Irans Anti Narcotic Law, much as with Russian Narcology. This is in stark contrast to support for the lifting of stoning penalties to 300 lashes and 10 year sentences.

Despite the focus on Islam, religion and generally bad news the aim in the Humble Firesnake Holeplex is not to divide. We take the view that this is actually about Us. Excellent evolutionary data produces models that not only explain the role of superstition moving us toward complex religions, but help us understand the intractability of "belief" in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Rejecting the integrity of any human being based upon what they believe denies us a window into the human condition. And seeing as we're discussing human rights, let's remember we have no right to not be offended. Which sadly, is what the recent ruling seems to ignore.

We ask the question if Islam and Sharia Law may offer protection for drug users. Given ignorance toward Islam in The West is at an all time high some time is spent outlining how stupid we really are and noting Islam is a violent horrific concept, only kept in check by Muslims who can indeed entertain two disparate ideas and draw strength from both. Islam cannot deny its history, no matter how it's rationalised.

Nor can Christians deny how irrational, oppressive, passively murderous and deceptive they were and remain today. Christian morality enforced on other cultures kills and ruins lives at break neck speed. It's fueled by "really nice people" in democratic nations who have no idea where their money goes, who benefits or how many cultures are torn apart by "well meaning" senile misogynistic virgins who somehow do these "nice people" an eternal favour. The pointy end is fundamentalism. We attribute entire mindsets to 'religions' based upon fundamental interpretation, when 'faith' actually follows a sliding scale of belief and behaviour that's a function of intellect - not magic.

The problems arise when moderate theists refuse to admit their belief is flawed, because they must sacrifice something - often an assumed something. Usually the "kinda, maybe off chance I might get punished when I die". There are intellectual reasons behind both expressions and they reveal much about human nature. We actually do respect each other - we're hard wired for it. Faith often requires self delusion or suspension of analysis, to the peril of the believer. And just as faith blinds one to reality, so too does a belief in ones superiority; something we do so very well in democratic nations.

NB: This widely circulated image of an "Iranian stoning" is an enactment of how the practice is carried out. However a quick search of videos should satisfy any questions.

The debacle in the UN HR Council stands yet again as another fabulous advance for The Ummah as the earth moves slowly but surely to one rule under one true God - Allah. An admirable and well won victory for Diplomatic Jihad. Our War on Terror is as useful to understanding the theological, political, social and military issues driving conflict as is Black Death to mapping the Yersinia pestis bacteria genome, in an attempt to arrest the spread of plague. As always, it is the gullibility in the West that will see Islam one day rule our planet. The old, tired and dusty standards were present. Misunderstanding over freedom, justice and peace.

In the West we associate Freedom with freedom to vote, of speech and of self expression. We have freedom to elect governments - of, by and for the people. We see Justice as peer controlled judgment ensuring outcomes are to the benefit of society: human beings. Peace of course, is the absence of war. Australia will be mumbling away like this the day we elect our first Muslim P.M. as an expression of our 'oh, to die for' concept of multiculturalism. Perhaps only when Sharia is written into Aussie law, will we wake up. Freedom to Muslims is conquest of Allahs land from the unbelievers, or reconquest of Dar al Islam from Dar al Harb [the house of war - nationhood] and Tyranny from oppressors - the West, via Jihad: Justice. Only when Dar al Islam has justified for Allah the Land of War, removed all unbelievers according to His demand, and established a global Ummah, can Peace reign.

To Dar al Islam, the 1400 year global Jihad, interrupted on September 11th 1683 at the siege of Vienna, is open for business. Now that the control of Pakistan is close to a reality, The West held fast in a Middle Eastern trap and militarily stretched too far to stand by Zion [Israel], the time for pretense is fading. What we in The West must now grasp is our concept of nationhood is a speck in history dependent upon abundant resources. We are blinded by our concept of Tolerance and in our rush to realise Equality fail to see human nature. If democracy has a self destruction mechanism it must surely be that of tolerance leading to a wall of political correctness, that will act as its trigger. Cultural and intellectual hubris has possibly sealed our demise.

We worry over "nuclear destruction", never bothering to check of all seven worlds in Islamic law, Allah may be everywhere, but resides only here. He already owns the world - it's the duty of Islamists to remove those who reject His Word. Destroying what is dictated to be ultimately devoted to his glory is unlikely, given a prior 1400 year struggle. And it's this very subterfuge the UN failed to see. Allah desires only Paradise for Muslims whose purpose it is to conquer the world for Him. Some pleasure in this world follows those who follow Him, but only as it applies to expanding the Ummah.

Humans have no rights - only Allah - the landlord. Any "rights" exist only under the Ummah which serves to oppress equality of religion. That is what Sharia Law is about. That is what Islamic immigration aims to achieve. Just as does Christianity. All the world for their idea of God - who is of course the same god; the God of Abraham, the God of the Jews - His originally "chosen people".

Payback has been a long time coming, and Islamists have patiently obeyed the lessons learned by the prophet at the battle of Uhad. To return to "the straight path" - Sharia, introspection, accepting blame, prayer, devotion to Allah - in temporary suspension of Jihad. This is required under Islamic law. 9/11/1683 signaled the decline of Islam, but it was the Industrial Revolution that dealt the 'death blow'.

At this time Dar al Islam covered more of the Earth than the Roman Empire did at its peak. The quality of life was over 500 years ahead of medieval Christian Europe, suffering miserably in serfdom and ruled by a corrupt hierarchy of Christian misogynistic megalomaniacs. Christendom grew from the destruction of knowledge and suppression of evidence. Greek science was expunged primarily due to it's "exposure" of biblical phrasing as astrological allegory - not magic. Put simply; Rome thrived on the horrific ignorance it inflicted on others. We call that time The Dark Ages. Iran is particularly pleased about its scientific success and has told us on several occasions, it will reverse the order to its prior state.

It's traditional to claim there's "no such thing as a moderate Muslim". Alluding that to be Islamic is to be an extremist. It's actually very wise to acquaint oneself with the teachings of Islam and particularly Islamic jurisprudence as it has grown since the prophets death. Even more so with writings of Islamic thinkers over the last century. It is this intellectualising that brought the genocidal life of the prophet into essential Muslim teachings, gave us anti-Semitism and urges hatred and annihilation of not only Jews - 'Zionists' but all unbelievers and any who support Zion. As The Great Satan the USA supports Israel, it too is Zionist. Allah forbids nationhood, personal gain, equality between belief systems or tolerance of any non Muslims. "Wait for them, set traps for them, kill them wherever you find them".

Perhaps however, we should remind ourselves of what The West did to this civilisation if we seek to understand Fundamental Muslim psychology and the pain which drives modern day conflict. Hamas is the result of "democratic elections" in Islam. Islamic parties win because of the need to remove any trace of Dar al Harb from what was once rightfully The Ummah. The Crusades, nationhood and the 1948 and '67 Israeli victories are a crisis of faith for Muslims hinting that Allahs chosen people, are losing to his designated inferior race of "worst creatures". It's not "racism" driving anti Semitism. It is the sacrilegious assault upon the demands of the one true God.

It was the inability of European Christians to reach the Holy Land thanks to Turkish Islamists and conversion to Islam by Christians that prompted the Crusades. As for the slicing and dicing we love to blame each of these stupid belief systems for, I'd prefer to not hand out medals. It's human nature at play. Yes, religion is to blame as with all horrors in our world - either in the first instance or as a result of passive apathy. But this is about us, not magic unseen beings with different criteria to satisfy for their jollies and your eternal reward. Belief, dear reader, is a most foolish intellectual exercise. Cult psychology [religious doctrine] is about controlling others and to control ones mind is to have absolute control - particularly when eternal damnation is a possibility for engaging in free thought.

As is clearly dictated by Allah to the Prophet and recorded in the Koran, it is the sacred duty of all Muslims to wage Jihad - either covertly, violently, deceitfully... you name it, until The Ummah covers the world and all is for the glory of the one true God. In modern times the concept of Taqiyya [Def], occasionally spelled "Tiqayya", erroneously, has been amplified to include non Sharia societies and allow expatriate Fundamentalist Muslims to live alongside Gods forsaken creatures [within Democracies] without killing them as Islam demands.

Tiqayya is the lying about Islam and ones true nature, for protection of Islam and spread of Jihad for the global Ummah. It's basis is directly from the Hadiths outlining a discussion about lying to kill a Jewish enemy: "I will kill him for you Oh Prophet, but we must tell lies". "Dude, knock ya-self out [or words to that effect] you are free in the matter", replied the prophet. There is only the Ummah and the land of war, yet to become the Ummah. It's non negotiable, punishable by eternal damnation and indeed violent, brutal Sharia Law. To not behave this way is to indeed be the enemy and deserving of all tortures Allah demands for kafir - non believers, "the worst of creatures".

Indeed, it is because the world belongs to Allah that this duty exists and one may never rest - be at peace - until we all cry out his name, and profess we believe the word of a medieval warlord. As he was the last and true prophet, it's fairly clear that Unbelievers must die, submit under Dhimmitude and for some races be tortured for the pleasure of Allah. Then with Dhimmitude and control of freedom exerted over vile kafir Harbi, as per the Most Merciful Allahs Compassionate request, may Peace reign. To repeat: Islam as a "peaceful religion" is the concept of when our planet "belongs" to Allah as total Ummah. Tony Blair the noted "religious" British P.M., is an exemplary example of idiocy born of selfish faith, amusing Islamists across he globe as he led his public astray insisting Islam is a "peaceful religion". As Earth already belongs to Allah, it is merely the establishment of the Ummah He requires.

For this reason His word was revealed to the final prophet - the true prophet. The only reason the global Ummah does not exist is because the direct word of God, is as yet unfullied. The aim of the Koranic revelations are to set straight Jewish and Christian divine texts which had become garbled over time, leading to impure practices and Harbi - unbelievers - in the land that was supposed to be Allahs. The prophet was instructed to set in motion the 'final divine solution'. As Allah is God, failure to recognise that "compassion" in Islam means killing for Allah, "the Most Merciful, the All Compassionate" and observation of murderous Sharia Law practices, is exactly why the UN fell into this trap. As each Koranic chapter begins with the above phrase, all of Islamic Jihad is notated as "compassionate".

The Cairo Declaraion of 1990 has been given a breath of new life and contains all the requisite points cleverly wrapped in double speak semantics, fit to fool any uncritical eye. Average Joe sees a fairly benign, if somewhat superstitiously obsessive, list of "rights". Islamic critics note immediately a document designed to enslave human beings to the very word of barbarism as demanded by Allah. The final article: Article 25- The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration. Which essentially means humans have no rights other than to act as Allah demands.

Allah wants the world, "desires for you" paradise and if you can't see how darn simple this is you will die. If you're too stupid to live a pious life then die as you kill for Allah - and it's an X rated paradise for your trouble. For a psychotic warlord in the habit of consummating marriages with nine year old girls - why 9 is the legal marriage age under Sharia - who needed an army to travel and kill with a guarantee of loyalty, it's an ideal formula. In the 21st century it gives us terrorism urged by Extreme Islamic Clerics. Motivation for Jihad is fundamental interpretation of the prophets strategic mind control and "revelations".

Genital mutilation, decapitation, amputation of opposite feet and hands, eye plucking to extract information [torture] and so much more is the "emulation" of the prophet. The Borg would be proud of such hive mentality, and I hope you can see the purpose of rubbish such as this website. It's claimed the prophet "Ascended" into heaven, making his senior followers outright liars who then inherited his military state, ensuring the opportunistic genocidal "explosion" of Islam we see in history.

So, then. Remembering everyday people get caught up in drug related crime what of drug users under Sharia? Harm Reduction is documented as reducing HIV spread among Iranian prisoners, something the Iranian regime may have to acknowledge. Some Sharia may be open to interpretation. Allah changed his mind when the prophet realised no-one liked him much around the year 615-20. So, he found out God actually wanted lots of blood - not social cooperation and equality of worship, as is mirrored from earlier Koranic verses in Mecca - before the Islamic calendar begins in Medina 12 years later.

This concept of abrogation did away with the benign verses seen in other "religions". As the Koran is published from longest to shortest chapters, chronology is confusing - and this is exploited by Islamic apologists. Clarification of Koranic messages is gained from consulting the over 100 volumes of Hadiths - chronicling the prophets life. Much like no-one who ever laid eyes on Jesus ever wrote about him, the Hadiths were also began many years after the prophets death, by interfering apologists using notations supposedly gathered during his life.

Hadiths supporting care of "the oppressed" exist and are discussed as essential to Islam today. As is the more important personal ideal of inner Jihad: struggle. Open and firm discourse is needed for all minority groups in Islam and for those under influence of the Official Islamic Council.

Presently in the Middle East the socio-political climate favours an unacceptable humanitarian crisis due to the escalating influx of illicit drugs, and arguably further capital punishment. Despite the scale, despite claims of UN bodies, resolutions, promises and human rights, the level of open and honest discourse within multicultural communities is approximately zero. Perhaps in the first instance the greatest hurdle is not one of malignancy, but of widespread misunderstanding.

The concept of 'Drug User Rights' remains controversial across the world. Attenuating the human rights aspect as it pertains only to the influence of various religious beliefs and theocracies is markedly misunderstood. Despite the crucial import it remains an utterly thankless task, ignored by all institutions.

We cannot ignore the evident gulf between changes in policy outlook secured at the Beyond 2008 Forum, and the reality of UN sanctioned Sharia law specific to the drug using community in the Middle East. The need for compassionate discourse on this issue has never been greater. The opportunity for The Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Drug Demand has never been clearer.

Surely we cannot hope for integrity on the issue of human rights if we fail those in need. Certainly the failure of beneficiaries of human rights to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, is naught but intellectual and cultural hubris that must rightly attract condemnation.

All articles touched on are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags
1hr. 22 MB

Between July 7 - 9 this year, NGO's from around the world, representing nine regions, met in Vienna for a forum on drug policy and related harms. Their purpose was to meet two resolutions passed at the UNGASS on Drug Control in 1998. Simply put, NGO's were to review the past ten years of drug policy and advise on the future.

The Vienna NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs notes in it's 'background' [to the forum]; Apart from the Member States' commitments and pledges adopted on June 10, 1998; the General Assembly, directly or indirectly, called upon NGOs to work closely with governments and others in assessing the drug problem, identifying viable solutions and implementing appropriate policies and programmes.

On July 9, 2008 all participants adopted the "Beyond 2008 Declaration" which is available in 11 page PDF format here. The text of the final declaration will be presented in March 2009, at the next high level segment of The Commission on Narcotic Drugs. As one would expect there was resistance to Harm Reduction, Harm Minimisation and agitation for tougher measures, erosion of rights and a continuance of 'war on drugs' ideology. Thankfully, this was the minority. As we hear in this podcast, the 'official' Nth. American delegation exercised their typical bullying tactics to prevent open reporting - previously permitted by the organisers - and by day two, succeeding.

The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union suggest June Sivilli of the White House Drug Office - the ONDCP - advised the hard-line delegates and prevented their previously authorised filming of the plenary. The "pro-drug" nature of discourse was concerning it appears. On the other hand, as Sanho Tree from the US Institute of Policy Studies notes, the USA would have previously been able to prevent much of the forum process and transperancy from even being realised.

From Stop The Drug War.org:

"Of the nine regions of the world, only North America sent two delegations. The first, which had met in St. Petersburg, Florida, in January, deliberately excluding harm reduction and drug reform groups, was the "official" delegation, representing hard-line prohibitionist organizations aligned with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, such as the Drug-Free America Foundation and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), the California Narcotics Officers Association, and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals."

"The second North American grouping, which had held its regional meeting in Vancouver in February, included dozens of organizations in drug reform and harm reduction, as well as treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation groups. Among the organizations from the Vancouver meeting that went to Vienna were the ACLU Drug Law Policy Project, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Virginians Against Drug Violence, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the Harm Reduction Coalition, Break The Chains, and the Institute for Policy Studies."

They also succeeded to alienate many delegates and NGO representatives, as we hear in audio from Vienna in this episode. As did Drug Free Australia's Gary Christian speaking for the Taskforce on Strategic Drug Policy. Seizing the final moment to claim the process had been less democratic than would suit his need to overlook human rights for the greater good of zero tolerance, Mr. Christian has loudly proclaimed his tactic for ignoring the Resolutions: the process was flawed and undemocratic. Ergo; why respect the need for increased harm reduction? The entire charade embarrassed and outraged the Australian and NZ contingent, and was noted by Committee Chair Michael Perron as a "final potential disaster".

He also complained about the selection process which is proved to be a false concern on page 42 of the Australian and NZ report. Overwhelmingly, the call for increased harm reduction, input from drug users, NGO's and policy regulators went out and is reflected in all nine regions, not least by a long shot, the Aussie/NZ contingent. The selection process involved consultation with two members of the ANCD. Perhaps reflecting two ideologies, or anticipated arguments? Drug Free Australia Executive Officer, Jo Baxter is on the ANCD board. I'd say the selection process was entirely fair and representative. Mr. Christian is intent to prove himself an ongoing thorn in the side of human rights for drug using communities.

The Transnational Institute published their review under, Beyond 2008 - A truly remarkable event. They did not miss the significance of an overwhelming rejection of prohibitions harms. After all, the issue we had to agree existed was simple, self evident and radical, all at once: prohibition is a failure which harms our communities and innocent human beings, more than the drugs we prohibit. No candy for guessing that ideological differences elicit fierce debate or that legislation reflects the aims of elites at the time. That's how we got in this mess. That's why some elite institutions blame "drug industry elites" for present problems and conspiracy to seize control. Politically, there's an entire imperative in the semantics alone.

The candy goes to pragmatism, and I think T.I. chose the word "remarkable", well. Drug Policy is an area that makes Western democratic disputes over religion and politics seem cosy. The struggle of minorities is a human rights issue. The clash between criminality and health is a moral crisis for many, and for disparate reasons. So I was interested that they noted,

Also;

Nonetheless. This was a hugely significant achievement. Danny Kushlick, of Transform UK, proffered the impending end of prohibition at 2015 - 2018. "2009 will pass with no change", he wisely reminds us. According to the United Nations Information Service, in Civil Society Gives a Voice to Those Most Effected;

"Three key themes have emerged from the deliberations:

Shared responsibility and accountability. Governments, at all levels, need to leverage the experience, reach, professionalism and passion of NGOs. In the past five years NGOs have become more focused, disciplined, inter-connected and organized around how to take on this global problem. NGOs are well placed to contribute - but only if their experience, reach, impact and commitment is engaged. As Eva Tongue, Chairperson of the Vienna NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs commented in her opening remarks "Money alone is not enough. Governments need to recognize that the fieldwork done by the NGOs is fundamental to success in all aspects of this matter."

Giving the most affected a voice. This is an issue that has to be addressed at the human level. The Declaration and Resolutions represent many different voices - individuals, families, and communities - from around the globe. This voice needs to be heard because it brings a fundamental understanding on how to achieve demonstrable progress to reduce illicit/harmful drug use and its adverse health, social and economic consequences.

Beyond 2008 Forum has created a call for action. The Declaration and Resolutions are just the start. It is a commitment by all of the participants to build on what was achieved here in Vienna as they return to their work and engage with their governments.

The Declaration and Resolutions coming from the Beyond 2008 Forum has a created clear consensus from NGOs. In his closing remarks to delegates, Mr. Perron said: "As we go back to our communities and responsibilities let us go knowing that our commitment to consensus over the past three days has created the opportunity for civil society to have a substantive voice here in Vienna."

This episode Firesnake looks at the forum process and controversies therein. We check out documents highlighting the most common themes and hear from attendees who express concern at "the bullying" of anti-Harm Reduction or Drug War proponents. We hear of hopes before the forum and the welcome outcome despite lively debate, covert tactics to sabotage harm reduction and the obvious attempts by the USA to continue the illusion it's sustainable war, is working.

The unfortunate failure to get drug users themselves as contributers to the final resolution text, is balanced by the fact drug user organisations now have a place at the table and can only advance human rights from there. Thanks to all below who attended and gave up their time to be interviewed on their own view of proceedings.

Special acknowledgement to Hungarian Civil Liberties Union.

Danny Kushlick, Transform UK.
Martin Jelsma; Transnational Institute, The Nethlerlands.
Kristopher Krane; Students for sensible drug policy, USA.
Alan Clear; Harm Reduction Coalition, USA.
Andrea Efthimiou-Mordaunt; International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS - John Mordant Trust, UK.
Elias El Araaj; Soins Infirmiers et Development Communautaire, Lebanon.
Monica Luppi; San Patrignanno Foundation, Italy.
Geoffrey Evans Drug Free Schools Coalition, USA.
Caitlin Padgett; Youth Rise: International network for reducing drug related harm.
Ahmed Al-Shatti; Kuwait National Anti Narcotic Drug Committee, Kuwait.
Tripti Tandon; Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, India.
Lennice Werth; Virginians Against Drug Violence.
Michael Perron; Chair - NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs, Vienna and Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Walter Cavalieri; Canadian Harm Reduction Network.
Sanho Tree; Institute for Policy Studies, USA.
Mike Trace; International Drug Policy Consortium, UK.

All articles touched on are here.

Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags.
49 min.
15 MB.

The history of prohibition and the USA styled War on Drugs is a history of failure.

Failure to meet primary aims in even a cursory manner. Failure to protect the health of the community. Failure to meet minimal cost effectiveness. Failure to protect economies. Failure to prevent global crime, vice and terrorism as a direct result of prohibiting certain drugs. Failure to resist corruption and above all, failure to respect basic human rights. This episode we look more closely at the current situation.

At every step of legislation we can identify singular dynamics. From the banning of opium smoking - but only by Chinese immigrants - to the Harrison tax act, to Nixon's Vietnam troop saving "Drug War", to calls today for "tough on drugs" measures, one constant appears. The presence of the the religious right and the anti drug lobby, agitating for strict control of immoral/illegal behaviour.

Profit and trade for governments/law enforcers and moral influence hence power for Christian institutions, have been apparent at many junctures. Nonetheless, from the mid 19th century through the 20th and up until today the level of addiction and problematic use has remained at around 1 - 1.3% of the USA population. Figures are almost identical for developed nations.

The real drug problem is not drug use, it is the failure of prohibition and the control of such a large black market by criminals. From discriminating against immigrant labourer opium smokers in the 1800's to fully geosynchronised drone and satellite controlled commando raids on billion dollar cartels today, the level has remained at about 1%.

Firesnake looks at the history of prohibition, the synthesis of heroin, morphine and the advent of the hypodermic along with the influence of wars. We review the large scale legal use of opiates in "tonic" and cough preparations, and the IV use of morphine that saw "white middle class women" the most common user in the 1800's. By the end of the 19th century the USA "Pure Food and Drugs Act" demanded manufacturers list ingredients on "patent medicines". This exposed a huge level of morphine use and addiction.

The simple act of providing accurate information - and not warnings or threats - saw addiction drop markedly through this simple honest "education" strategy. People chose to manage this problem. Opiate and heroin addiction was treated as a medical condition until the 1914 USA Harrison Tax Act. This law circumvented the Constitutional right to imbibe any substance by linking prescription and use to taxation. The new crime of "possession" was born.

Overnight a benign mode of behaviour became criminal, and was driven by the police, the anti drug lobby and the religious right. The significance of this cannot be overstated. We look at how a problem with wording around opiate prescription; "in due course of treatment", ensured the jailing of doctors. This led to a supreme court case, known as the Webb case, and precipitated outright prohibition of prescribing opiates for addiction - a centuries old practice. Thus "prohibition" was born.

We cover the history in some detail and include an audio montage on prohibition and the "Drug Free World" we certainly don't have. We've laboured long and hard in the humble Firesnake holeplex and cobbled together an audio mashup with over 20 contributers from around the world. They speak on prohibition, illicit drugs, effects, policy, health, human rights, corruption, mandates, ideology, morality, the need for policy review and more.

A word on lack of duplication. There are no repeated segments, no audio was pre-recorded. One sentence introducing UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa is repeated - once.

The repeated "moral obligation" heard from one contributer is a collation of unique sequential components of answers to questions in an interview. None are repeats. Bronwyn Bishop just happened to comply by offering the same reply to each quesion, nicely qualifying her argument. All segments are out-takes blended together to give a unique perspective on prohibition.

Voices include:

Danny Kushlick; Dir. "Transform" UK - EU Review "Towards a drug free world", Private interview.
Tony Geoghegan; Dir. Merchants Quay Ireland - Private interview.
Lieut. Jack Cole [Ret] Founder, LEAP - Private interview.
Fr. Joe Kane; Chaplain, Reuters Island Jail. NY - Private interview.
John McGroarty; Ret. Det. Chief Superintendent, Cardi Drugs Unit - Private interview.
Ethan Nadelmann: Dir. Drug Policy Alliance, NY - Private interview.
Matsukis Marios; Cypriot MP: Allied Democrats and Liberals for Europe - ADLE; EU Review "Towards a drug free world".
Francis Wilkinson; Ret. Chief Constable, UK - Private Interview
Sanho Tree: Dir. Institute for Policy Studies, Washington - Private interview.
Chris Davies; ADLE MP, UK - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".
Paul Hunt; UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health - IHRA presentation
Peter Sarosi; Hungarian Civil Liberties Union - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".
Antonio Maria Costa: Ex. Dir. UNODC - Private interview.
Dr. Philip Emafo; Chairman INCB - Private interview.
Margaret Court; DFA Patron, Australia - Marketing Audio
Boris Van Der Ham: ADLE MP: Netherlands - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".
Bronwyn Bishop; Australian Liberal MP: out-take of interview out-take from "The Winnable War" podcast
Christopher Hitchens [Author/Journalist]; USA Live TV interview, 2007
Paul Gallagher; Firesnake - "Prohibition: The I.N.C.B." - podcast
Sophia In 'Tveld; ADLE Dutch MP: - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".
Michael Heney; Investigative Journalist
Tony Abbott; Australian Liberal MP - Interview grab

And more...

Enjoy.

All sources and articles touched upon are here.

Music, thanks to Garageband.

Gags.

1 hour.

27 MB.

In recent months the international condemnation of the War on Drugs has been apparent. The Allied Liberals and Democrats for Eurupe, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, The 2008 Conference of the International Harm Reduction Association, European agencies, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, The Lancet and more have expressed the same concern.

Concerns over tactics used to enforce punitive measures and criminalise modes of behaviour are not new. Reviews of the absurd UN initiative "Toward a Drug Free World by 2008 - we can do it" [Declaration] are unambiguous as to the failings of prohibition and the futility of the War on Drugs. The Executive Director of The UN Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], Antonio Maria Costa has called for a new focus on "the three HR's", Harm Reduction, Health Responses, and Human Rights.

Prohibition has failed and the present legislation to combat illicit drug related harms ultimately equates to a war on people. More so, the reticence of the UN and the International Narcotics Control Board to admit problems exist combined with the ambitious claim of credit for "success", is widely condemned. Human rights breaches are clear and mandates for which each group, particularly the INCB, are responsible are ignored in favour of personal interests.

As noted on Feb. 27th, 2007 in Closed to Reason;

Despite Australia's robust role in domestic and regional Harm Reduction there remains a vocal minority in favour of zero tolerance. Or rather, against Harm Minimisation. The misconception that HM is "pro drug" is common and reflected in "cloned" non-evidence based opinion pieces in Australia and Canada. Others point out the evidence in favour of increased Harm Reduction, noting the benefit to the entire community - who primarily support harm reduction. The shrill moral tone levelled at all minority groups continues apace with regard to drug users.

As noted here often, Harm Minimisation is always finding itself under attack. The policy is poorly understood and a main sticking point is that it "accepts" the inevitability of drug use. Some don't like hearing this and go to great lengths to discredit HM. Usually for moral reasons or the ease of apportionment of blame: if we have a drug problem, it must be somebody's fault. Young adults are most vulnerable to this. As we become "post cognizant" we all see our parents, guardians, family as human beings - not omnipotent beings there for our egocentricity. With a history of drug use, violence and laxity over the rights to property ownership, it is axiomatic that guilt will arise. This can be managed or exploited. Young ex-users blaming everyone but themselves, claiming HM promotes drug abuse have experienced the latter. As most drug use does not led to harm, the problematic user is psychologically challenged to rationalise uncomfortable realities about themselves.

The other concern thus, is the sheer momentum behind this idea as it's deliciously tempting for users and ex users to shirk responsibility and ultimately turn their energy to harming others - by undermining harm reduction. The primary driver of this activity is one's inability to cope with reality or accept responsibility. This promotes apportionment of blame, both personally and as an elemental "truth" for ones world view. We've touched on binary opposites here before. Defining the quality of X by focusing on the opposite qualities in Y.

For the politically astute, you'll recognise this as the neoconservative ['neocon'] philosophy, beloved by the GWB administration. The very fundamental ontology of the pro-abstinence/anti-HM/zero tolerance/Harm Prevention/Just Say No approach, is utterly dependent upon the flaws of "the other". There is nothing on offer that does not involve blame, punishment, revenge and worse. Positive values are defined by the malignancy of "the other", lending false validity to the "conquest" not otherwise proven by evidence.

Yet, if the value of something demands the presence of an active, harmful entity what then occurs without an enemy, or in this case in the absence of supporting evidence?

"The easiest way of uniting people is to have an enemy, and if you then split away from that enemy... you start looking for another enemy within your ranks ".  Paul Hadley, Editor: The Church Times

So, we still hear of absurd 'just say no' campaigns redressed as the "new" discovery outlined above. It is really simply the new face of the zero tolerance camp in the long running drugs debate. Despite all the evidence, all the suffering and all the inconsistencies, the attack on Harm Reduction serves only to endanger the "enemy within": all of us.

This episode we look at why it's understandable, if wrong, to fall for this intuitive claim. We also examine the evidence and consider what the struggle of minority groups subject to use, abuse and far worse by others means for us in a democratic society. Do we still today have the luxury of ideological and subjective opinions? In the face of evidence to the contrary?


 HIV in IV users by region; pub.2006. Arguably the INCB have 'overseen' all rises except Australia, in which Harm Minimisation predominates. [Source]

The human and social cost in delaying an immediate acceleration of harm reduction, implementation of needle exchanges in prisons, heroin trials for intractable users, and injecting facilities to match our over 1000 needle exchanges, is beyond unacceptable. However Australia's INCB representative argues another case [ABC]. To think in light of such clear data, our media misinform the public with compelling opinion pieces that play on emotions, not rationale, [still] is appalling.

We see an MP use a privileged position to promote zero tolerance ideology. Previously argued by merit [page 2] of it's not being HM therefore not "soft on drugs". This tough on people approach is, well... now enshrined in a spectacularly futile "bong ban" in South Australia. Now we have little idea of what toxic plastics, chlorides, putties, heavy metals, glues, etc, smokers will use to make a bong, much less issues on cleaning and hygiene. This very issue attenuates the point at which moral panic serves no-one and costs the community. If anything, it's value is in the lesson that we must vocally and stridently object to exploitation of our parliamentary system. The net result will be wasted resources in piddling cases most of which may never reach court. Any chance to focus on quality control and carcinogenic materials could be lost. Such tokenism does nothing for drug related harms bar confuse expedient management with punishment.

Given smoking chambers can be made from everyday items, including apples, we can accept the instigator is genuine in claiming HM "implants messages" that destroy us and that "bongs on display" is one such subliminal assault on our youth. Perhaps when inanimate objects start to control you, it is psychology, not policy to which we must turn. Nonetheless, this is supposed "proof" a conspiracy exists to legislate all drugs, keep our young addicted and profit "drug industry elites". The trendy new term given to those who've worked to keep Australia's health excellent, in the face of prohibition induced harms. Sadly, this is the level of "bipartisan discourse".

Seeing as the rights of marginalised have come up, we should also note what generations of human rights jurisprudence can tell us. It is actually the real elites who can make such claims as supposed "default" truths, thus ensuring discrimination and ongoing elitism. Equal rights is about confronting and revealing elitism as the facade it is. The struggle in HIV/AIDS riddled Africa, Myanmar, South America, The Philippines, etc  to ensure the uptake of condom use is one with an elite religious institution whose power base demands that it "knows the will" of our moral guardian. As this is impossible, we can see how decent human beings will behave in passively savage ways, blissfully sleepwalking to nowhere on the corpses of those who are expendable pawns.

But this isn't about "them". It's about you, me and every free thinking independent individual in a democracy. We've been on this train before. Minority groups gain recognition. Opponents argue morally for the "head in the sand" approach, discriminating and marginalising fellow citizens without a second thought. Democratic rights come in leaps. Women had to fight for the right to vote, blacks for the right to not be segregated by law.

Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton remind us of how important law reform and education are in moving progressive civilizations forward. Obama has now won the Democratic nominee position, once explaining he "did inhale - that's the whole point", in reference to the legion of public figures who puffed "pot", but never inhaled. Here we have three powerful pointers that serve to remind us, there really is no "other" and our way of life aims to realise this. Some alive today can remember a time when prohibition of drugs, politically active women or "colored people" running for any public office was unthinkable. We now understand the harms related to prohibition have prompted awareness of the need for change.

We cannot see the juxtapositions inherent in prohibiting drugs, harming/punishing users and the path to corruption until we accept the rhetoric-come-propaganda stereotyping of drug users is a backward step for free society.

At every juncture of democratic leaps, we can identify our religious right and puritanical watchdogs warning of our imminent doom. But no. It is the attempts to deny mounting evidence, and the cowardice in accepting it's import, that opens the door to doom. Doom for individualism, civil rights, the right to health, equality and freedom from harassment from others in positions of influence. Freedom from those who'd impose their will on others for personal gain, sometimes as "revenge" for immoral modernity and it's tolerance for individual expression.

In what can be described as a win for democracy, drug users and human rights, the Supreme Court of B.C., ruled Canada's punitive 'controlled drugs and substances act' to be in breach of the Canadian Constitution. Health Minister, Tony Clement had aimed to close Insite, Vancouver's Safe Injecting Site precipitating an appeal. Judge Ian Pitfield expressed concern over the "unfettered discretion" present legislation placed in the hands of the minister. He ruled in favour of the facility giving Ottawa until June 30, 2009 to "rectify" the disparity with the right to medical treatment and the right to health, as per the charter of rights and freedoms.

Firesnake looks at these issues and pays particular attention to the INCB, now under sever criticism for complicity in human rights breaches. The full scale of barbarism may be found in the references noted and linked to at the base of these notes.

The unacceptable conflict of interest Australia faces, with INCB board member and DFA board member Brian Watters in a position to influence policy to suit his ideology cannot be ignored. Made up of individuals who serve their personal agenda, the INCB works in secrecy with accountability to no-one. This quote from the IHRA blog "HR2", reflecting on the INCB's failure to respect it's duty and implement pharmacological treatment in response to illicit drug use is a typical example;

As we note, all evidence points to the INCB promoting drug related harms, shirking it's mandate in favour of "war" and undermining domestic success. We see it here in Australia. Attacks on the signifiers of HM continue without evidence, encouraging confusion and anxiety in the community. Recently DFA published material in two separate 'news pieces', initially written by outspoken biblical moralist, Bill Muehlenberg, attributing it to DFA Executive Officer, Jo Baxter. It was a careless dismissal of Wodaks proposal to examine cannabis regulation benefits.

This very example iindicates that DFA have an agenda not related to drug related harms, but to moral deportment. Illicit drug related harms are secondary to behaviour. Both items remain prominent in the 'rolling news'. DFA snorted at requests for clarification. DFA officially claim "no religious affiliations".

A prior Chairman of the ANCD, Watters' recent scare tactics, reported by ABC, in selling an INCB report underscored how many Aussies use cannabis and highlights the insouciance of Watters self serving approach. The INCB mandate is to promote global HM - not reefer madness sensationalism - via implementation of the 1961, 1971 and 1988 UN Drug Conventions. It's wise to now regard INCB reports and claims with suspicion.

Australia must begin to see itself on the global stage and understand the politics. Why this chap, at this time with the evasion of responsibility quite clear in the evidence discussed? And what of 'The Winnable War' recommendation #18 that the ABC use "standard" terminology when reporting on illicit drugs? It hasn't been adopted, but highlights how easily freedom is replaced with fear. What does that say about free thought, much less free speech?

Well, if you fail to listen to this "pro-drug" episode and miss having messages implanted with the intent to "keep you addicted", you may never know. In this episode, we also examine expert comments referring to the INCB as a "relic from the past": a time of punishment and misguided belief in a winnable war on drugs.

We also heard from Watters that QLD is Australia's primary source of methamphetamine production. Rather than offer any solution the point made was "governments have the power to change this"; an allusion to his wish to dismantle HM. If the good Mr. Watters understood the "balloon effect", he'd admit it is the result of offshore "wars" on production. Force down production in one area and another immediately picks in up. This statistical fact, proven time and again internationally, is testament to both the failure of and harms induced by, the so called war on drugs.

Continue this until an entire region reduces production and domestic production spikes. If we note the evidence supports the INCB contributing to this, congratulating nations who abuse their public, enforce labor, death squads and sentences, jail all drug users and generally breach the INCB's responsibility to human rights, we have a right to demand better. Ironically DFA patron, Margaret Court includes the claim meth' labs are "toxic waste dumps" in her Scare repertoire.

How bizarre it is that the result of the INCB failing to respect human rights and support outmoded "just say no" approaches, is to criminalise the entire health problem. Said differently, Watters and DFA support the very head in the sand approach that ensures "toxic waste dumps" and escalating large scale crime. Having done so this handiwork is then dressed up to amplify calls for more "toughness" on drugs [people].

 Sadly it is no secret DFA are strident critics of Harm Minimisation, demanding forced drug testing, random police searches, scare tactics, enforced detoxification - despite a four times greater mortality rate. Support for gagging the ABC such that "tough on drugs" messages dominate, closure of vital facilities based upon opinion alone and denial of education/evidence to vulnerable students on the basis of adult guilt, fear and ignorance.

Sweden, the gold standard of zero tolerance, have just passed laws allowing unfettered eavesdropping on phone, internet and email communications [2] [ABC]. The implications of eroding civil rights this way are significant. One of DFA's key demands is unhindered policing and surveilance of all home computers, cell phones, vehicles, finances etc. If "cannabis finances terrorism" as we now hear from the extreme right, we can predict how this "monitoring" will be marketed here in Australia.

Finally, we may also ask ourselves, in the face of evidence supporting regulation, why calls for open and honest discourse, immediately attract immature, sensational responses. This excuses moral panic. Surely a nation known for success in managing drug related harms and the spread of viruses is able to meet the challenge of uncomfortable questions.

The argument Harm Minimisation encourages people to use drugs is false. It has no more import than claiming that Britney Spears' parenting issues have created an army of soon to be abusive parents. The difference is that tens of thousands of lives are ruined in the quest to "lock ourselves away" from reality. We do ourselves and our families a grave injustice by lying to them and disrespecting their intelligence and ability over such high stakes.

Say no to prohibition.

Articles mentioned are here.

Music: Garageband.

Gags.
70 min.
25MB.

Religion and money go hand in hand. Far from "spartan" conditions, or "vows of poverty" being implemented, we see palatial splendor. Firesnake looks at just why Australia seems to have an out of control monster, promising falsehoods and threatening eternal torment, funded by unwilling Australians. Indeed, we need only touch on a few - so called - "Christian" cons which are the tip of the iceberg.

There's also a comedy intro with explicit language. Just so you know...

A poll in Fairfax on April 27th 2008, suggests residents of the fair city to host the Vatican's Youth Love In are not as prayerfully considerate as promotional media grabs suggest. Writing in Crikey Bernard Keane noted, "... the majority of Sydney people had got jack of the Catholic Church’s World Youth Day once they realised how disruptive it would be. While the men who run the world’s premier institution of misogyny and paedophilia should never have been allowed to hold their medievalist frolic in public in the first place, the event has undoubtedly been affected by the Iemma Government’s Sadim touch".

In God's Business - BRW June 29-July 5, 2006 - Adele Ferguson spells out the extent of religious tax exemptions. In doing so, she also exposes how opaque this self-righteous business really is. The pointy bit is this. Religious groups receive exemptions on income tax, GST, FBT, payroll tax [non-commercial], stamp duty [all property transfers], rates and land tax. Nor do religious groups pay capital gains tax from asset sales, tax on commercial businesses or observe any Banking Act rules where they would apply. As Ferguson puts it, "better still" once exemptions are granted specific to financial services. "There is no sunset clause or review by APRA of it's operations".

Excluding donations, congregation and collection income, credit card machines or income from over 200 charities and additional business, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, Uniting, Salvation Army, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist and the Pentecostal churches produced a miraculous revenue of $23.3 billion in 2005. The Catholic Church reaped a whopping  40.3%.  Pentecostalism is growing faster than any religion in Australia, generating $263 million in 2004.

Pentecostalism claims around faith healing and supernaturalism are of significant concern. It represents the pinnacle of con artistry, non critical thought and unguarded conformity. It's cost to the community is beyond significant. Hillsong are the largest earner in this fastest growing religion. Hillsong Emerge is the benevolent "arm" of Hillsong Church, once illegally using funds intended for Indigenous communities, for it's own benefit.

Remember the disturbing link between Hillsong, Mercy Ministries, Gloria Jeans coffee shops, and medieval superstition? Sheer theft of money from vulnerable and disturbed Aussie girls who were then subject to exorcisms, bible classes and glossolalian ranting to cast out the demons that made them "evil" initially. The Age reported on this appalling abuse at the time.

However, we don't need to be demon exorcising, bible quoting devotees to coerce ill people for no reason other than vague superstition. As Ferguson noted, "Hospitals run by the Catholic Church, for example, will not conduct vasectomies, tubal ligation or abortions, although they are routine in other public hospitals". Max Wallace from ANU says: “People in many parts of Australia are discriminated against by not having an alternative hospital provider.” [Page. 44] Sisters of Charity simply refuse to reveal revenue. And on the pattern goes.

Of interest is that an April 23rd shin dig put on as a "gee thanks" by Cardinal Pell for former PM John Howard, included CEO of World Youth Day, Roy Wakelin-King on the 'confidential' guest list. Held at Pell's Pad - Cathedral House - in St Mary's Cathedral precinct in College Street, it was rumoured Kevin Rudd would drop in "for a chat". Pell who lunges forward with "Be Not Afraid" as his motto is the man who smoothed things over for a resolution to this silly business of the Roman Catholic Church paying for self indulgence.

To satisfy the Jockeys Club for any manner of potential deficits from Pious partying at Randwick, Pell scooped $42 million from Howard. For the gig itself our Chief Magician appointee from Castle Vaticanus scored another $35 million. Remember this is his buddy who handed him $4 million for a Sydney campus at Notre Dame Uni. On the eve of the 2004 election. Leaked to Sunday papers, read just before the pews fill.

The really strange thing is even when we know the ultimate terminus of where this train takes us, we fail to do the responsible thing. Category 12 funding is available via the Education Department Funding Scheme for "the poorest schools in the lowest-income communities in the country", according to one of the scheme's architect's Jim McMorrow. "They were meant to be very, very poor, with very, very low income, and largish average class sizes," he said, according to Fairfax papers.

Despite the sect itself boasting of being "in the upper levels of the socio-economic group", The Exclusive Brethren's already notably wealthy schools continue to receive the "special" funding. A Brethren spokeswoman claims the payments were initiated under the Keating government.

Of significant concern is the decision by the Rudd government to hand over $50 million in coming years. This is despite the schools failing to meet criteria noted above. Below are schools funded via Category 12 Special needs over 2001 - 04.

• Kulkarriya Community School, Fitzroy Crossing, WA
• The Alice Springs Steiner School, Alice Springs, NT
• Nyangatjatjara College, Yulara, NT
• Bellhaven Special School, Young, NSW
• Mansfield Autistic Centre, Mansfield, VIC
• St Gabriel's School for Hearing Impaired Children, Castle Hill, NSW
• Melrose Park School, St Marys, South Australia [$$$]
• MET School, Sydney, NSW [$$$]

   [$$$] - Brethren Schools.

The Age continued;

Education Department documents also reveal that the Exclusive Brethren regarded former prime minister John Howard as their most influential supporter and ally of last resort. In 2000, the sect's elders asked Mr Howard for special assistance on school funding because of his "sympathetic support in the past and the contact with you over the years".

Federal school funding documents show that the Brethren's multi-campus NSW school, Meadowbank, and the South Australian school, Melrose Park, were funded at the same rate as "special schools", giving them the same per-student funding as Nyangatjatjara College, in the Northern Territory, the Giant Steps school for autistic students and schools for the hearing-impaired.

The Brethren's MET school in Meadowbank does not meet the criteria for category 12 funding: it is in suburban Sydney, has small class sizes, and is financially supported by a community that boasts it has no poverty. The sect's Victorian school, Glenvale, which has campuses at Glenroy, Lilydale and Melton, receives a lower rate of funding. [Source]

Other more benign disparities include the YMCA securing Recreation Centre contracts, not due to service quality, but due to tax breaks. With the above financial favour, the YMCA simply undercut non religious commercial entities, involved in the bidding for tendered contracts.

In true religio-centric character the YMCA is one of a very few organisations to ignore qualifications and experience staff bring to public health and recreation needs. Pay, for example, is in the lowest income bracket for staff who have a fitness hobby certificate and those with science degrees and years of clinical experience.

When we pay for "extra" services it's a mere marketing strategy we respond to. Ditto referrals from physiotherapists to community recreation centres. We have no idea if the individual provider at the YMCA is a professionally trained therapist or someone earning a few part time dollars. An identical national uniform serves to depersonalise the individual and add weight to the "team loyalty" con.

Occasionally, this blinds the staff themselves. Many become convinced such poor income is "a necessary part of the job", focusing on free use of facilities and "community contribution" as their noble career path. Coerced philanthropy, perhaps?

Join and we must pay by monthly or fortnightly direct debit. Stop attending and we alone must stop the debiting. In most cases it's the attrition of members that finances the centres. Fee paying members who don't attend always outnumber those who do. But that's fine as it is the accepted model in the health and fitness industry. Guilt and well meaning plans to "get fit" will ensure we do not cancel paying until long after we've stopped attending. And there's always the disincentive to stop paying in the huge joining fee we're continually reminded about.

In fact, the YMCA go after profit like a struggling business. In an age of diseases related to lack of exercise, one may wonder why this Christian group is not feeling too charitable - despite massive financial help.

A global organisation, the YMCA to probably afford to run our centres at no loss, as a favour to a sports keen nation. But such financial realities apply to all religious affiliates - great and small. It's always been about the money. Nothing but the money. Staff, clients and the Great Aussie Fair Go are used or abused to advantage in keeping ahead, as it were.

For a mere fraction of the above, religions in Australia, Pell, Baptists, Brethren Elders, Cults, Catholics, business savvy Seventh Day Adventists, "Drug Free" Scientologists/Evangelists, Harley riding con artists, Christian City, Teen Challenge, greed focused magic working Pentecostals - and more - have much to smile about. This of course, is only topped by the rise of fundamentalism in all it's lethal malignant glory.

And still, we keep on paying...

All articles touched on and other posts are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

NB: Explicit Language at beginning.

The YouTube URL of George Calin's act is;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Gags.
31 min.
14 MB.

The Medical Journal of Australia recently published a paper entitled, Unplanned admissions to two Sydney public hospitals after naltrexone implants. The conclusion relating to the use of implants in blocking opioid receptors thus the effect of opiates such as heroin, in treating addiction, was straight forward:

An editorial critical of the TGA's failure to monitor the outcome of what is essentially exploitation of the Special Access Scheme was published in the same issue. The scheme is designed to allow access to medication not otherwise available for terminally ill patients. The medication must have a proven unique ability to manage the symptoms in question. This is not the case for naltrexone implants which are being used in unregulated settings as an alternative to other - proven - treatments for opiate addiction. Indeed, it is this legal loophole via the TGA that acts as a deterrent for naltrexone proponents to report adverse reactions. From ABC's The Health Report April 21st, 2008:

A co-authour of the editorial commented. "It is concerning that the recent research on naltrexone implants in Australia has not followed usual scientific processes," Associate Professor Robert Ali, Director of the Drug and Alcohol Services Council in Adelaide, said.

Reminiscent of Gibson, Degenhart and Hall's paper Opioid overdose deaths can occur in patients with naltrexone implants [MJA, 2007; 186: 152-153], this latest data caused similar responses and academic discussion over methodology. The responses to Gibson et al are interesting and indicate how difficult an area to clarify this is. Simply put, how does one die and what role - if any - does naltrexone play? I'd point out the following;

• If someone died "from" the implant it would require a scenario in which reasons for IC admission went untreated: renal failure, dehydration, metabolic acidosis.If someone dies from opiate toxicity due to a faulty implant, it heralds poor technology and monitoring. Eg; it's a two month wait for blood level test results in Perth, poor technique: insertion may be incomplete [not all tablets successfully inserted].

• If someone dies from opiate toxicity after cessation of treatment, then it raises questions about the treatment in total, and suggests poor follow up or ineffective counseling. Reasons for using are not addressed in full by blocking cravings.

• If someone dies from opiate toxicity with an active implant, and toxicology reveals other CNS depressants, it may go unrecorded as poly-drug toxicity can be argued as COD.

• Finally, if someone dies of obvious opiate toxicity, in circumstances familiar to emergency services, there is no reason to then confirm if an implant is active, faulty or inserted in the first place. The COD would be opiate toxicity and variables related to the implant not recorded.

Hence, anecdotally there is some confusion regarding "deaths from naltrexone treatment", as it is often noted.

However this paper did not deal with deaths - only admissions. And symptoms were quite severe, including metabolic acidosis, renal failure, dehydration, prolonged and profound withdrawal symptoms, vomiting, diarrhoea, confusion, delirium etc with some requiring Intensive Care. We can see from above we're talking about the failings of the implant, hygiene, monitoring and perhaps poor methodology in calculating naltrexone dose. It's done via Body Mass Index. Yet it may well be ambitious to think body size equates strictly to neurophysiology and genetic predisposition to neuropharmacodynamics - how drugs effect the individuals brain.

Nonetheless as with all things involving naltrexone, the opportunity to observe abstinence proponents defend an ideology, in the face of evidence, presents itself. Close, chronological examination of one vocal proponent, in light of ongoing problems and previous fatalities is cause for concern. Dr. Albert Stuart Reece has been the focus of attention in the humble Firesnake Holeplex before. On this occasion another response to the denial of evidence relating to naltrexone implants. He offers no evidence - just promises. In looking for reasons why Reece may ignore contrary evidence one finds the theme of fundamental conservative morality. It's as if Reece wants to excise "immoral" Harm Minimisation and implant morality...

In this episode, Firesnake looks at the rebuttal from Drug Free Australia to the MJA findings. Australia could be the biggest loser. You can read the response here. There's an extensive reply at the Drug Free Australia Watch blog. Citing "important contemporary evidence" and quoting Dr. George O'Neil and Dr. Stuart Reece in support of the W.A. implant trials, we are promised upcoming positive data in "the world's leading medical journals". It has actually been submitted for review and it remains to be seen as "a truly significant achievement", as Dr. Reece claims.

In fact Reece has promised these "radically superb", "brilliant" implants are the "best in the world" and "statistically powerful results" will follow. However, he said that 15 months ago in his submission to the Inquiry on the Limits of Harm Minimisation. "The outcomes of this trial are already very obvious. They will be brilliant, and in addiction medicine, as radically superb as the HPV vaccine has proven in infectious disease control in that discipline", he said in his Parliamentary Submission. Methadone itself came in for particularly vicious and unfounded criticism. Whilst Reece is prone to claim the presence of drugs other than opiates causes overdoses in naltrexone patients - when the implant fails - he's also prone to claim the opposite applies to methadone. He reasoned that 78 methadone related deaths were really 851 because the presence of other drugs meant "the figure should be clarified". [Page 5]. Or rather, dismissed.

"Therefore the problem is not one of evidence or safety assurances - those determinations have already been made by the many reputable and highly skilled clinicians who have used the devices, invariably with superb results". [Pages. 14-15]  How is progress going? Well, despite DFA's claims, Norman Swan noted on April 21st, 2008;

Firesnake has taken interest in the moral conservatism of the religious right and it's propensity toward abstinence. It's argued that fundamental religious beliefs can have an adverse effect in the public health domain in the quest to enforce morality over evidence. It's further argued the global involvement of certain naltrexone proponents in anti HM propaganda is well demonstrated and this conflict of interest makes for poor integrity and objectivity from DFA and their "fellows". Drug Free Australia don't so much present evidence on Harm Prevention successes, as present attacks on Harm Minimisation as the self evident cause of our drug problem. Attacking the signifiers of Harm Minimisation as malignant is done over and again, rather than promote the socially unpopular strict conservative moralism, that is the assumed alternative. We follow the loyal devotion to abstinence of Dr. Stuart Reece from 1990 quotes beloved by the International Abstinence Association on the moral decline of society [bold mine];

Enduring the "hedonistic delirium" of modern democracies, Reece threatened the QLD government, claiming they'd "have blood on their hands" if he couldn't prescribe naltrexone - September, 1999. He got his way. By the last week of May 2001, 25 patients were dead and the QLD medical tribunal launched an inquiry into "gross negligence", also noting his breaching guidelines regarding pregnancy.

From ABC The 7:30 Report - 4 June 2001:

ANNE REYNOLDS: He was very, very passionate. He was very enthusiastic about his program. He was very adamant that it was The best thing available, nothing else was as good as Naltrexone.
SIMON ROYAL: Anne claims Naltrexone treatment left her son with chronic depression and a new addiction to antidepressants.

Six hundred days after his course of Naltrexone tablets, Paul Reynolds took heroin again.
It killed him. Anne is flying back to London after interring her son's ashes.

ANNE REYNOLDS: He's doing it without the right - enough support.
He's sending them back into the world with just the families to care for them without the rehabilitation process in place. He seems to think that he has all the answers and he doesn't. He's one man. [Source].

He was defended by Dr. David Hunt who, claimed the death rate was similar to methadone. But a 2005 study at NDARC noted over 2000 - 2003 naltrexone had a death rate associated with it, four times that of methadone [Page 49]. Hunt, along with Reece and O'Neil, appears in a thank-you list in the anti methadone, pro naltrexone, pro "bible classes" Trophy of Grace. Written by Bronwyn Healy who now holds a place on Youth for a Drug Free Australia.

Total Mortality per 1000 Episodes, 2000 - 2003 [Source]:
Methadone: 102,615 treated. 282 related deaths. Total Mortality = 2.7
Naltrexone: 3,169 treated. 32 related deaths. Total Mortality = 10.1

Two years later the Inquiry was indefinitely adjourned, Reece had hurt feelings and claimed "vindication" from a "conspiracy between drug addicts and The Courier Mail". Three months later on September 14 2003, he was on Sunday Nights with the ABC, claiming Dr. God was the one in control and that "faith cures addiction". Remember, it's not what one believes we're noting. It's what one does with it.

In Februrary 2007 Dr. Reece introduced himself to the Inquiry into the impact of illict drug use on families. He glossed over his tragic past with naltrexone;

At least 25 dead and 1,800 rapid detoxes - each taking days and requiring intensive medical support - in eight years. And he "knows the science"? Asked about naltrexone fatalities;

On August 7th 2007 Reece wrote to the Commissioner of Health in New Jersey, USA, lobbying against needle exchange programmes and also painted his experience with naltrexone as authoritative and positive. He also again attacked Wodak;

We also note the support of certain overlapping elements of the religious right in Australia. Firesnake looks closely at this approach toward addiction "treatment" and asks just where the morality lies. How is it "morally correct" as some supporters claim, to place ones superstitions ahead of another's health in making clinical choices?

It seems plain that ideology is what defines policy and procedure for certain practitioners. At some point we must ask ourselves which dynamic is really dominating here? The health of the individual or the cosmic duty of the practioner to expunge the aforementioned off-shoots of progressive societies "hedonistic delirium"? And ensure society finds "the way back" as the way forward solution to modern day problems? I must submit dear reader, that the latter is plainly demonstrated. When the gains of democratic society are so insouciantly insulted, we may conclude the signifiers of Harm Minimisation must terrify the morally conservative and appear as invitations to debauchery.

More so, it is also plain identities associated objectively with Harm Minimisation, are justly discredited in spectacular evidence vacuums, by dent of their professional leanings. Naltrexone is the emergency adjunct to faith based education and general "just say no" abstinence, employed when they fail. Evidence to the contrary is simply ignored as is the option of respecting the best of both approaches.

The conflict of interest here is clear. Faith and superstitious belief cannot be allowed to intercede in the treatment of vulnerable at risk community members. When we consider also what certain proponent will gain from "success" and lose from failure, we must remain highly skeptical. The last word should go to Professor John Saunders who said in 2001 referring to the Reece deaths;

The first tragedy is that now a large number of young people have reportedly died having had treatment with Naltrexone.
The other tragedy is that the adverse publicity that Naltrexone has received recently will prevent there being a proper research and development program into Naltrexone treatment, including Naltrexone implants. I have a real concern that a useful, the availability of a useful form of treatment, will actually be compromised by all the drama which is occurring at the moment.

All articles mentioned in the episode are here.

Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags.
1 hour. 3 min.
25 MB.

On December 10th, 2006, globally recognised Humanist, Science buff, authour of at least ten books and captivating speaker, Robyn Williams introduced  another excellent episode of Ockham's Razor for ABC's Radio National. Entitled "Apocalpse Now" the subject material was presented by Dr. John Reid, a Melbourne based neuroscientist.

It dealt with the challenges humanity faces in managing exploding populations, dwindling resources and climate change in the face of human nature and our ability to minimise cognitive dissonance. Aussies are in debt to Williams for his dedication to excellence in science and the publics understanding of the actual role, methodology and value of all sciences. The Science Show is his baby and has run since 1975, seeing Robyn prove himself as a quick witted an effective Science journalist and broadcaster.

Thus it is with considerable gratitude that many "in the know" look forward to his presence when introducing Ockham's Razor. The title is one many will immediately recognise and in doing so accurately predict the production style of the program. William of Ockham was a 14th century English monk. His contribution to scientific explanation is Ockham's Razor itself and is noted famously; Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate, which translates as entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. The ABC website "About" page extends the philosophy to production technique clearly informing interested parties:

More so, it is often the speakers role or intention to lay out hard evidence, proposed solutions and respected findings or predictions they have not made. At most a few sentences of reflection may be included. Hence it is with something close to disbelief I find at Creation Ministries International an article, viciously and slanderously "critiquing" the episode published on Janurary 26th, 2007. Written by Aussie Creationist, Christian Fundamentalist and enemy of reason Bill Muehlenberg, fallaciously attacking Williams, Reid and exploiting the style of presentation to claim insouciant nonchalance on Williams part. The title, Melbourne Atheist - chillingly consistent aplication of evolution gives away it's intention to bolster the theistic position that evolution is a malignant force. One that both hides the truth about "creation" and applies genocidal ideologies fit for extreme Stalinists, Nazi's to anyone who asks the hard questions and finds evidence to challenge the worth of "Mans dominion over all the Earth".

I had to chuckle. Reid opens with his skeptism - as a scientist - that humanity will find a way to manage our challenging future, through science. He claims so because people are adept at deluding themselves. Although Reid was referring to passive delusion leading to apathy and inaction - particuarly on the morally difficult issues - Muehlenberg grabs the ball and sprints over the line into the realms of malignant fantasy and reckless zealotry. All the time, trying to make the old "no God, no morals" claim. By the way I know what you're thinking. ABC Science Show, Ockham's Razor and Williams vs "Creation Ministries International" and Bill Muehlenberg? It's a no-brainer, and yes, Bill offers zero evidence to substantiate a solid refutation. But if you're interested read on.

What became truly fascinating is that every piece of Muehlenberg's article is a false and deceptive construct, built upon demonstrably false claims and invented references to "arguments" that appear nowhere in Reids presentation. In fact, Reid actually argues the opposite to what Bill accuses him of on specific points. Muehlenberg misses this or intentionally ignores it because if one is not for God, one is indeed for evil and unspeakable deeds. Bill is a true believer. He takes the bible as absolutely literal and indeed favours the shiny new toy Creationists frequently play with: Biblical End Times.

It is impossible to accept Bills piece as anything but comical, until one realises he not only claims Australia is at civil war over morality, but is also a worthy foot soldier. Jesus must return as the world ends. Why would any sensible person ignore an open invitation to paradise and attempt to save our wonderful planet?

The scriptures are clear. Redeem or be damned for eternity. Could this be the basis for such a childishly and demonstrably false piece by Bill Muehlenberg? There are over twenty demonstrably slanderous and fallacious claims about Dr. Reid, Williams, science, the production piece itself and the existence of active dynamics seemingly bent on destroying humanity. All on a piece supposedly quoting from another on how to save humanity!

The only way to deconstruct Muehlenberg's Rally-to-arms against reason, is to go through his fallacious and insultingly personal attack on Reid and measure it against Reid's actual presentation transcript on ABC Radio National. This episode Firesnake does just that. Let's forgive Bill for deceptively slandering Robyn Williams: there's no way one can miss the intention of Ockham's Razor to be something more than succinct. Muehlenberg forgoes journalistic credibility to his detriment. Had Williams satisfied Bills need for hand-holding the show would lose it's impact. Bill's real gripe is that Robyn has no theistic persuasions.

Acknowledging climate change is an easier topic than population control, Reid is then at pains to stress it is birth rate, not living persons, we must reduce if we do decide we cannot sustain present growth. Reid argues that he has little confidence in civil means solving the problems. Primarily voluntary abstinence from procreation, due to the urge to do so and the belief in an inalienable right to have children - more affluent than their parents. At no time does he claim he has an alternative solution. At no time does he propose so much as plucking a blade of grass.

He refers to the findings and suggestions of international bodies and advances the calculations specific to population, ecological foot printing, sustainability and climate change. Just to be clear: all Reid's advances note the need to reduce birth rate as a documented strain on food and essential resources, land availability and care and climate change. Reid uses an entire paragraph thusly: "Let us canvass them", after noting theories and findings do exist.

This is a tired trick Creationists favour. Actually, Darwinian evolution by natural Selection explains the evolution of all life on the planet and our astonishingly improbable presence as a superior primate. I don't say "improbable" as in "unlikely". I mean to point out we can calculate the probability of being born, and this includes understanding the probability of our planet forming, genesis of life, the irrefutable march of evolution, the achievements and trials of our species over 1/4 million years and finally the fact our parents "dumped" billions of suitable gametes when only two came together to achieve conception. And, how many others could either parent have conceived with?

Simply put, whilst we are just half a chromosome away from chimps and indeed higher primates, Evolution explains why we are certainly not in the same ball park as microbes, slugs or diseases. Bill has no idea of how evolution works. No religious fundamentalist can hold to their beliefs and hope to seriously comment on this brilliant scientfic theory nor the hard facts that support it. Evolution proves why Bill is deluding himself. And his response is not untypical.

Other ridiculous offences include linking only to other similar pieces on the same site and claiming Dr. Eric Pianka urged dropping Ebola virus on 90% of humanity - to a standing ovation of people like Reid. It turned out to be one person who "certainly gained that impression". It is a false claim, period. He also links to other pieces which twist the words of scientists and criticise Robyn Williams. Consider this quote from another piece by David Catchpoole and Jonathon Sarfari, "Doomsday Glee":

Muehlenberg's personal attack on Dr. Reid is unmistakable and very telling about the true nature of modern Christian charlatans. Muehlenberg has attributed an entire malignant mindset to Reid based solely on his own vile mess which he then leaps into for a further four paragraphs. Bill tells us that food prices are cheaper. Global crises are not to be considered as accurate and it is actually a "birth-dearth" that has supposedly led to the challenges we face on our very trouble world. He denies globally accepted findings on climate change and insists we can easily continue to feed a population of 12 billion. His offerings include:

Not surprisingly we have the "anti-Christian" theme of Reid's piece invented, and then explained to us, by Bill. He peppers his piece with taunts and insults such that one finds it hard to follow his train of superstition. Even though Dr. Reid notes that the "three horsemen of the apocalypse - war, famine and pestilence" would be both cruel and inefficient at reducing the population it is the following Muehlenberg seems to have really reacted to:

Bill Muehlenberg concludes:

As Dr. John Reid correctly notes;

Human beings are self-deluder's. We can convince ourselves, in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, that black is white and heat can flow from a cooler to a hotter body. It is this power of self-delusion that leads us to believe that somehow we will find a way to fix the problem of our unsustainable consumption of the Earth's resources.

Or as Stephen Hawking noted in January 2007:

"Humankind must Understand The science that rules our life. Otherwise how can we meet the future if we don't know our options?"

Firesnake awards a Clear and Present Danger To Critical Thought to Bill, with a brilliant entry score of 9.2/10  for:

• creating misinformation by selective quotation
• linking selective quotes of another's work to demonstrably false claims
• attributing negative and malignant personality traits to innocent academics and supposedly those who reject his version of reality
• misleading over the facts of evolution
• cultivating and nurturing the fallacious claim non theistic views equate to genocidal ideologies
• and indoctrinating innocent, gullible or vulnerable people with an aggressively anti-evolutionary, anti-scientific and dangerously ignorant viewpoint

All articles mentioned are here.
Music: Garageband.

Gags,

1 hr, 4 min
25 MB

Paul Mullett is like tinea. No mater how many exhaustive feats one tries to avoid reinfection, he can reappear with a vengeance. More so - putting odour aside - it's painfully irritating to look at and remove traces of his presence. Finally, one moist, warm and dirty environment in which he thrives is Melbourne's Herald Sun; aka The Pulp and Print Court.

Suspended from active duty, and remaining a force within the "police union" [website here] he is described fondly as the "embattled union boss" in the PPC. State Premier John Brumby is somewhat serious about his police corruption "watchdog", although experts point out only a seperate dedicated body will solve the full problem. Prior Premier Steve Bracks was a fool to yield to any of Mullett's demands - many of which arose after investigations revealed his illegal ways.

Please feel free to reacquaint yourself with Paul Mullett and his honest approach to power struggles.
Flash Audio: OPI Police Phone Taps; Ashby, Mullett, Linnell. Explicit Language
Direct Download - "save as" here.

That his involvement in corruption, bullying of members, cowardice, threatening of female officers, tipping off murder suspects and ethical breaches may secure a 25 year jail term is of no moment within Murdoch's pages. This is a paper in which police are perpetual "heroes", reporting on whom is biased milk-sop pulp fiction and who regularly run beat ups and campaigns based on fallacious claims they initially propose. It's a fertile ground for a conspiracy nutter to air his paranoia. Selfless heroes with a swan song "What About Me?". Sure guys, sure.

It is the latest most recent association with Melbourne's only real rag-paper that beggars belief. A day after we learn from two other sources Mullett faces a challenge from within his own union, the PPC excelled itself. The paper forwarded a "survey" packed with leading questions to a one third minority of members, collated the predictable results and pretended to have a "news" story. Packed with distractions like "devastating", "shock findings", "graphic results", "pressure" on Chief Commissioner Nixon, readers were bound to lose their way. We hear primarily of the 69% who dislike Christine Nixon. We had to wait on the good Commissioner herself to hear that only 69% of one third of Victoria Police were suitably "pulped" - shall we say. Put another way, she's actually admired by the bulk of her members.

The very fact the Herald Sun survey includes responses critical of Mullett's suspension when the reality is that even his closest confidants want him gone, and ask only questions about their beat up dynamic can't be ignored. More so, most of the detail is superflous. It's a Mullett vs Nixon beat up. The Police Association Magazine actually notified members of the impending survey. Disenchanted members and Nixon antagonists had pencils at the ready. Herald Sun readers can join in. Unaware of the world outside their boxes the uncritical readers had an opportunity to vote on her performance themselves. This was replaced by a "new" poll on whether these corrupt cops should have stun guns and automatic pistols.

Ironically, it's other leading piece was coverage of a rally primarily attended by Police Association members and somewhat peppered with other emergency service members. In a nutshell Police supposedly want more members, more resources, less females and no "improper association policy". The final sticking point requiring police to reveal all social contacts of a criminally dubious nature. In this episode we look at how valid these concerns are in the present climate and in the context of Mullett's real history. The final insult was the "editorial". Remember, this entire story is nurtured by this newspaper. There really is no problem other than a demonstrably right wing appraisal of it's own delusion. It included:

Police have also challenged falling crime statistics and are intent on labeling the forward progression of modern policing as "the softly, softly approach". The tiny minority who bemoan the morale-eroding "feminisation" of the force almost certainly realise they act for Mullett - not themselves. The reality is that Victoria Police has a problem. Mullett is yet to address issues raised in previous episodes here; Mullett's Mumbles, Mullett's Motives and Corruption in Victoria Police, extending back to Janurary 2007. On the issues raised by the Herald Sun farce one must note Victoria has below average numbers of female officers with only one other state having less. Policing today requires a sharp mind and access to data for economic exploitation. Police deal with people - not characters. The PPC may wish it were otherwise but our crime rate has fallen 23.5% under Nixon. To this we can add that of the 20 best performing service areas, 14 had more than a quarter of female members.

The onus is on proponents of this rot to serve up some evidence. It's doubly offensive coming a day after we hear of a national youth homelessness crisis. These individuals present with dual problems of substance/medication use/abuse and psychological disorders of almost any magnitude. Certainly they come daily into police contact. Is brute force really what we want here? Or is it the skills of a well educated and properly trained compassionate person we need to step back to see clearly?

The other annoyance is double standards. Victorian Police are certainly corrupt - charges have been laid, conversations heard. I actually think the "improper association" idea is going to be a logistical nightmare, possibly discriminatory and perhaps of limited value. I also think it's a great idea. Victoria has no Spent Convictions Policy. Our L.E.A.P. database is compromised. Our privacy is a joke in Police hands and to Police members. Today, Victorians can loose careers, homes, families and worse solely due to the brandishing of criminal "records" by insouciant police and their nosey assistants. In other words, you and I have no such "protection" in our relationship with authorities or indeed their flawed and discriminatory use of our own personal history.

That we, as a community, pay taxes for this corruption to run unchecked in the largest law enforcement body in the second largest city in a so-called "globally progressive democracy" is, objectively speaking, utterly fascinating. Just how gullible are we? Fairly so, I'd wager. 

In January 2007, in The Australian Don Stewart former Supreme Court Judge, Royal Commissioner and founding director of the NCA said the "deep seated and continuing corruption" will only be  finally managed with a Royal Commission. He claimed at the time recent findings were "the tip of the Iceberg", describing the task of cleaning up Victoria Police as "herculean". "Only a wide ranging Royal Commission will do it". The article went on to report:

"Mr Stewart is one of the most senior legal figures in Australia to warn that Victoria has failed to address police corruption. In 2005, former royal commissioner and former ASIO head Edward Woodward said corruption in the state was at its highest level ever".

"I take the opposite view," he says. "Why the Victoria Police don't want, and the Victorian Government will not have, an independent wide-ranging judicial inquiry into police corruption, such as was had in Queensland and NSW, is obvious. They know that it would reveal what they don't want revealed."

Mr Stewart says that, while head of the NCA, he met opposition from many members of Victoria Police, whom he describes as "bad as any". He says he had to terminate the secondments to the NCA of a number of state-based police because of concerns over their conduct".

In March 2007 in an interview with Damien Carrick for ABC's The Law Report, Stewart noted,

"We have to look at establishing proper agencies, research areas, but looking at them, making them transparent, auditing them all the time. You can't let the police investigate themselves, it doesn't work, never has done, never will. And there are all sorts of ways that you can endeavour to maintain integrity, and I don't want to become involved in the discussion of this in any way, but one cannot but be aware of what is happening in Western Australia at the moment. It's not just the police obviously who can become involved in corruption and corroding to use your word, of institutions. There are other people who can be, other people in powerful places. Including politicians.Not only politicians but public servants at high level. Money is a great incentive. I don't know how you get rid of greed, you can't just wave a magic wand and say 'From now on the human race shall be greed free'. It doesn't work like that. It is part of the human condition...".

Damien Carrick: The more things change, the more they stay they same.

Don Stewart: They do. And it reflects the human condition, and we can't change that. All we can do is our best to minimise it.

This Episode Firesnake looks at these fun times with audio grabs from the main players. We also award a Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought to Paul Mullett himself. He slam dunks a more than respectful score of 8.6 / 10 for being himself. Of course, moaning about "weakening" female officers, then using a picture of a "diminutive female" disarming a shoddy copper during a rally to highlight the true evil of these people we call women, was delightful.

The real issue some say is this silly business of human rights and fear of "being sued". This "thuggery" - yes we're still on about a "diminutive" lass - demands we actually compromise our very definition of democracy such that law enforcement have unprecedented powers and limited accountability.

Where have I seen that before?

All articles touched on are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.






Gags,

51 min.
19.5 MB.

Bible Prophecy is a Scam. Not only have prior prophecies failed, Christians can offer no explanation. "The Virgin Mary" cult was soundly debunked along with the fallacious parthenogenesis lie that offends billions of people today, decades ago. Yet, even patiently explaining how the answer is in the same bible misused by duped early Christians, only skeptics seem able to handle the hard work of thinking.

Cygnus' Study in "Debunking The Bible" concludes with what is considered common knowledge amongst those who have read arguments for both possibilities of a prophesied virgin birth [truth or trash].

We see above that there are numerous problems with this being a prophecy of Jesus. The first and foremost is the translation problem. We see that Isaiah was familiar with the term BETHULAH and used it when he wanted to convey a woman's virginity. That he did not employ it at 7:14 seems to indicate that this is not what he meant for this prophecy. In addition to this is the problem that the prophecy was framed in such a way that for it to be true, it would need to occur in the time of King Ahaz. Lastly, we see that the child is indeed born during Ahaz's time as chapter 8 shows us.

Far from being a prophecy of a virgin birth, we find a regular pregnancy some 700 years prior to the birth of Jesus.

Prophecy busted.

We're told God demands "unconditional surrender" and is obsessed with "nakedness" in the USA. This most religious of developed nations, with many holding to medieval superstition and belief in demonstrably false religio-superstition, has even earned extra points for "refusing to repent".

Bible Prophiteers simply engage in postdiction - finding something that can be squeezed to conform. Nostradamus was all the rage before our Creationist profiteers saw the potential. Typical examples include as "honey" is sticky to touch, this meant oil. As "darkness" was mentioned and oil is black, this means oil is important. The "battle" must be in the middle east. Hence, with troops there we must of course be about to witness the end of the world. Israelites was predicted to "return" [they invaded] to the "homeland" before the "End Time". Global Warming is the necessary preparation for a "scorched earth", refugee crises are "scattering of the people", equal rights are the doing of "the unrepentant", etc, etc - in fact Pin the Tail on the Passage is all the rage.

Sadly, not only do they fail to provide a shred of evidence, they fail to explain why any other phenomena might not be viable. This is in line with the general literal interpretation we see in trendy Christian Magicians. Exegesis is the re-interpretation of text. Hermeneutics is the active physical meddling with reality to give the impression prophecy - as per any text - is correct.

The concern is of course the promotion of climate change - "bring it on man, global warming is holy" - may not be entirely helpful to future generations of Earth. In fact "The New Apocalypse" cares little for the planet, human beings, present day suffering or social decay of any sort. The worse it is, the better chance JC is packing his bags for the Second Coming.

Encouragement of war and geographical migration, falsely linking current events to archaic text are daily events. One boasts that George W. Bush has said WW3 is due in 2008, thus so is the "Rapture". Another claims Bush said the "last years" begin in 2008; thus it's 2015 for the Rapture. "End time radio" in the USA specialises in linking daily news events to the horror outlined in the book of revelations - "Amen, brother" is the standard utterance to dead civilians, dead soldiers, economic downturn, struggles over oil and so on. The belief is being pushed that events in the Middle East herald the realisation of events written so obscurely, even proponents can't agree on the best lie. War is good - that's for sure. Jesus loves us so much, he'll kill most of humankind in a blaze of "glorious and holy fury that will shake the Cosmos".

What is truly bizarre are the dual claims of JC judging "the repentant" as worthy yet this "essence of redemptive soul", as it were, may be learned from a quick DVD tutorial. Why go to Confession when the Digital Deity [and your credit card] is at hand? So, if this JC guy is so dumb rote learning by video is enough to enter "Gods Dwelling", who'd want to go play in the clouds with him? Plenty of gullible, bored and very annoying people with far too loud a voice it seems.

Sam Harris put it well once; "But you ask me what the scariest things are in Christianity: this infatuation with biblical prophecy and this notion that Jesus is going to come back as an avenging savior to kill all the bad people". -- Sam Harris, Beliefnet inverview

One typical site contains the following:

Sensible Christians debunk the silliness of the entire affair and others have patiently explained the flaws to simpletons. One poor chap who we hear from this episode believes he will find Prophetic Oil - in already drilled fields - and sink a well so large it will drain Saudi Arabia. Not only does this fly in the face of geological evidence and mining principles his only reason is because of what he thinks he can see in the bible.

Oh! And it's actually all on his DVD - that he mentioned contained all the real data and full truth, whilst he was announcing he didn't want to profit from the interview.

It is simply the cowards way out. Not only do trendy god botherers have a real life Harry Potter book to justify bigotry, abuse, suffering, war and financial greed - it contains a get out free caveat. No need to conserve energy, think green or care for our environment. That's pure blasphemy. In fact, it is the problems we see today that prove we must repent - not apply ourselves to the evidence at hand.

Why? Well, we must "prove" the bible is literally true. Science must be discredited, religion must be reintroduced and men must have superstitious control over as many people and as much money as faith in magic allows. In fact, it seems to be an out of control extension of Evangelical Creationism with all the pizazz of oxymoronic "Creation Science".

Faith indeed is a cognitive detriment when it comes to novel thinking. What we must guard against is hermeneutic interpretation: invading Iraq so "the final battle" may begin. Exogesic interpretation might have you smiling happily at starving Aussie families and suiciding farmers, but at least you get to die and plunge to heaven-less oblivion, void of afterlife as a final [albeit very quick] payback.

Killing innocents, invading nations and ruining economies to then say "there, told ya so", is going too far.

This episode Firesnake has some out-takes from what is run of the mill rubbish pushed out by these groups. We look at the absurd claims, the easy exposure of fraud and the potential causes and outcomes.

All articles are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags.

56min.
15MB.

The relationship between fear, anxiety and morality is always at play in society. R.D. Laing once said we fear our own minds, death and other people. Friedrich Nietzsche claimed "the history of our morality is the history of our fear". Governments take liberal advantage of our fears of what may eventuate. Environments of cultural and moral panic have been cultivated by government rhetoric and media sensationalism for decades.

Whilst many issues do deserve increased scrutiny, closer examination of source material often indicates little or no change and regular media driven campaigns. Recent data in Australia indicating an ongoing and increasing culture of alcohol and drug abuse is presently attracting attention.

Yet the claims made in media for opportunistic reasons often take the form of outright deception void of facts or of clever "reader poll" urgency. Aussie P.M. Kevin Rudd wants to discuss present concerns at the "historic ideas summit", drawing both support and skepticism. Bernard Keane wrote in Crikey that the current coverage serves to boost funding chances for institutions and sustain a tone of moral panic in the media.

Figures indicate little difference in consumption over 10 years apart from a drift toward spirits. However, these stats don't reflect the change in culture, night clubbing and the growth of "super clubs". Perhaps the changes in the way we socialise with alcohol and the high numbers of young adults partying together contribute to a rise in alcohol and drug fueled media stories.

Do we panic as per instructions? Are we remotely skilled at placing data in context? Exactly what role do government and media play in setting our mood? Perhaps we devote too much energy to crises we will never experience. Perhaps a harsh look at alcohol abuse will serve to debunk the misinformation we are fed on illicit drug use.

    Firesnake looks at these issues and awards a CPDCT award to The Herald Sun for it's absurd "poll" of cleverly manipulated and deceived readers who are force fed invented imperatives on AFL drug policy. Congratulations to the Pulp and Print Court for a score of 8.4 out of 10. A Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought indeed. Despite crafting the entire sham, then publishing how stupidly misled readers are the editors forgot over 22 leaders in the field of substance abuse had praised the AFL policy only weeks before;

“…for resisting the pressures from populist quarters to use such issues for partisan ends. Such populist approaches ignore the mass of evidence that humane harm minimisation and treatment approaches to issues of illicit drug use are far more effective at diminishing drug-related harm to the individual and the community than are punitive 'name and shame' approaches�?. 
[Source: Page 4.]

All articles of interest are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags.


47min
15MB