Firesnake

Drug War Disaster

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:31:00 GMT

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 1900'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.

Prohibition: The I.N.C.B.

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:58:00 GMT

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;

... the Board â a 13-person, ostensibly independent body that does not speak for the United Nations but is an integral part of the UN drug control system â has consistently cautioned against effective HIV prevention measures and failed to highlight critical shortfalls in the global response.

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.

The Axis of Evil and WOMD's: weapons of mass destruction. Drug Industry Elites and WMOD's: wrong messages of destruction.

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;

This will certainly come as news to the Russian Government, which prohibits methadone on the claim that it is illegal under the Conventions. As stated by Russiaâs Minister of Internal Affairs Boris Gryzlov in 2003, the countryâs prohibition of methadone was ânot the governmentâs own initiativeâbut rather the result of our responsibility to implement the UN drug conventions of 1961, 1971, and 1988.â

Just the opposite, methadone is expressly allowed under all three Conventions according to the official Commentaries.

It might also come as news to the International Narcotics Control Board, whose record of luke-warm support for methadone is chronicled in the excellent 'Closed to Reason' report produced by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Open Society Institute. [Source] - original emphasis.

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".

This insouciance isn't isolated. Recently published on DFA Watch was a reference to this blog as supporting war on drugs rhetoric, and on the new "interactive reefer madness". At the same time it added a page named "What's New?". The referenced blog now tops the DFA index - under the title "What's New!". Such contrariness is reactive, divisive and dismissive of any notion to "work with existing agencies"; practitioners of Harm Minimisation.

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.

Divine Dollars

Mon, 26 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

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 Churchâs World Youth Day once they realised how disruptive it would be. While the men who run the worldâs 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 Governmentâs 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: âPeople in many parts of Australia are discriminated against by not having an alternative hospital provider.â [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.

Implanting Morality?

firesnakepodcast@gmail.com — Fri, 16 May 2008 05:00:00 GMT

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:

These severe adverse events challenge the notion that naltrexone implants are a safe procedure and suggest a need for careful case selection and clinical management, and for closer regulatory monitoring to protect this marginalised and vulnerable population.

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:

Paul Haber: My colleague Dr Nicholas Lintzeris and I are basically in charge of the Medical Drug and Alcohol Services at Liverpool and RPA hospitals. We realised that there had been quite a number of patients admitted to the emergency departments of both hospitals with problems after having these naltrexone implants.

Norman Swan: What did you do?

Paul Haber: We communicated with emergency department staff and with our own nursing staff to get a list of the patients that they had been consulted about and then got some information from the files and put it altogether. Now the important point is that there's no sort of red buzzer that goes off when this incident occurs so we don't necessarily have a complete listing of every case that came to our hospitals.

Norman Swan: So what we're talking about here is a minimum?

Paul Haber: Absolutely, we've certainly had one case since completing this report and we also know that not every case goes to hospital and certainly not going to these two particular hospitals. [Source]

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;

Anyway going back to the alleged harm from naltrexone implants, this isn't the first time there's been disturbing news about them. A paper in the last few days from Western Australia has admitted to some long term problems and last year Louisa Degenhart was a co-author of a paper, again in the Medical Journal of Australia, which described deaths. [Source]

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];

Clearly the âway forwardâ is in some respects also the way back, to the traditional virtues which have always been shared by stable, self-perpetuating civilizations. Clearly we need together and internationally to turn from the immature selfish and self-centred hedonistic delirium which saw the explosion of various serious disorders manifested by rising trend lines in many nations and were heralded by unsafe modern contraception and followed by its many ideological offspring and cousins including condoms, needles and syringes, methadone and values-free value-less so-called âeducationâ programs in many fields, and begin to deal with the core problems and the root social mythologies which support them and which are clearly rooted in indulgent attitudes of the human heart.
[Source]

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;

I have done 1,800 rapid detoxes, which is one of the biggest experiences in this country. I was a naltrexone pioneer in Queensland. I have only had two hospital admissions out of 1,800 procedures conducted, which is a world safety record....
I defeated the cream of the methadone crop in court in a long-running battle with the medical board, so I do know the science. [Page 31]

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;

That is an extraordinary question. Have you asked the same thing of the methadone doctors?... I find your question highly offensive. If Dr Wodak were here and I said, âDr Wodak, how many of your ex-methadone patients have died?â do you think he would give a quantifiable answer? [Page 60]

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;

Health department figures indicated last year that in the years 2001-2006 I single handedly registered 11,000 of the 14,000 registrations for opiate detoxification in the state of Queensland. I have also attained one of the three largest numbers of naltrexone based rapid opiate detoxifications in the country of Australia with over 1,800 procedures performed including 600 naltrexone implants. This was done with only two overnight hospital admissions which is a world safety record. I have also submitted evidence to several Government committees and leaders on the subject of drug policy....

Furthermore there is a clear conflict of interest by some of the leading proponents of NSPâs . Dr. Alex Wodak is the International President of the Drug Law Reform Foundation which lobbies unceasingly for drug decriminalization [Source]

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.

The Muehlenberg Rally

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:20:00 GMT

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:

'What can be done with fewer assumptions is done in vain with more,' he said. That is, in explaining any phenomenon, we should use no more explanatory concepts than are absolutely necessary. Well, for both broadcasting and for science, simplicity should never be despised. Our program, named after William, consists of a short introduction followed by a scripted talk. Just that, week after week. This program allows thoughtful people to have their say without pesky interviewers interrupting, or someone of opposite views turning the exercise into a joust. There are times when a speaker needs a clear run, some proper control, and this is what Ockham's Razor provides.

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!

"Reid is convinced that planet earth is grossly overpopulated, and unless we take some radical steps, like culling the human race, we are all doomed. I kid you not."

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.

Yet Bill claims "Reids talk is essentially a claim for the extermination of much of humanity". From here he moves quickly to inventing that Reid is alluding to a Nazi plan to exterminate Christians and asks if Reid will "pull the macine gun trigger", "flick the switch on the poison gas." In fact he carefully cherry picks pieces of the actual transcript to create the illusion of a different argument, and dresses it in weasel wording: "culling", "extermination", "Stalinist", "socialist", "coercive". Remember, not one iota of a suggestion human beings should so much as be touched can be found in Reid's piece.

"... will he pop a suicide pill, or take a more 'humanitarian' view, and try to take as many with him, as in a suicide bombing?", Muelenberg rants when Reid notes the redistribution of wealth would effect the affluent most and that Australia has a large ecological footprint. Does Muehlenberg understand that of course, those with more wealth will experience a greater change because of those living in abject poverty? Hard to tell, but "it all sounds good to me" he writes, before launching into textbook Wedge Strategy deception with "after all, we are no different to animals or slugs, or microbes, according to the accepted Darwinian wisdom. So, I guess there is no problem in treating human beings as a disease to be eradicated".

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":

In other words, it seems: âletâs tell our young people that thereâs no Creator, weâve just evolved, and evolution is much more wonderful than if weâd been createdâ. Never mind the millions of years of death and suffering, as well as false starts and extinction, that evolution (and indeed any long-age view) entails. [Source]

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:

The overpopulation orators ignore the simple calculation that all the people in the world could fit into an area the size of England, with more than 20 square metres each. Also, a real population expert, Nicholas Eberstadt, in an article âDoom and Demographyâ (Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2006), pointed out that the population growth of the last century was caused mainly by reduction of mortality, especially in infancy.

Contrary to the doom-mongersâ diatribes, the real problem today is not over-population but a âbirth-dearthâ. The worldâs total fertility rate has declined to 2.9 children per woman, its lowest level ever. This is down from 4.2 in 1985. Bear in mind that 2.1 is necessary for a stable replacement rate. There are now around 80 countriesârepresenting 40 per cent of the worldâs populationâwith fertility rates below replacement level. For example, Russia, Germany and Italy now fill more coffins than cradles. Italyâs fertility rate is an amazing 1.24. In Australia the rate is 1.8.

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:

Our global footprint is worldwide.
Meanwhile, people like the Federal Treasurer promote population increase. Sorry, Mr Costello, your 'One for the wife, one for the husband, and one for Australia', will have to be changed to 'None for the planet'!
My plea is that we should face reality and begin to discuss the unspeakable. Humanity must undergo a mind-shift. If you must have a God, at least recognise he/she/it did not give humanity licence to trash the planet, whatever the Bible may tell you.
Indeed, humanity has been all too compliant with the Biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

The precepts of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent the quintessential perversion of the human mind. They must be abandoned and the notion of the sanctity of human life must be subjugated to the greater sanctity of all life on Earth.

Bill Muehlenberg concludes:

Right now these men mainly propagate their ugly belief systems in the public arena. Pray that they do not take control of the political processes, or we may see their Brave New World forced on us all a lot sooner than expected.

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

Mullett's Mates

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:28:00 GMT

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:

Sen-Sgt Mullett may be under a cloud, but he stepped out with protesting police yesterday to say 650 to 1000 police were "missing from the front line". It seems he has a point. The results of the confidential, online survey may cause Ms Nixon to think again about seeking a third term as chief commissioner when her contract expires next year. It is time not only for police command to explain itself, but for the Victorian Government to take responsibility over a serious upheaval in police ranks. Saying you have full confidence in the Chief Commissioner and the force is not enough, Mr Brumby. This is an issue that must be fully debated now that Parliament has resumed. The thin blue line is in danger of becoming thinner as each new case of violent street crime supports the findings of the Herald Sun survey. Ms Nixon and her close advisers need to ask themselves if they need to do their jobs differently.
They must regain the trust of the officers they command and in doing so regain the confidence of all Victorians.
Herald Sun "editorial"

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.

Cracking The Egg

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:00:00 GMT

Easter is a major event on the Christian calendar. Good Friday sees devotees being crucified and self flagellating in the firm belief Jesus died for their sins. Much like Christmas it has it's roots in Pagan beliefs and practices. The story it relies upon is also the story of many other deities beginning with Horus in 3000 BC.

What is it about these features that see them endure in all ancient religions? Where do they really fit in Christianity? What role did the Nicaean Council Constantine formed in 325 AD play in cementing these practices and stories to Jesus?

The entire story of Christ is identical to that of Horus. Born of a virgin on December 25th, began teaching at 12, baptised at 30, a miracle worker with 12 disciples, betrayed and crucified to name just some similarities. He also rose after three days. Krishna of India, Dionysus of Greece in 500BC, Attis of Greece in 1200 BC. Mithra, Zoar, Beddrov, Adad, Mikado, Alcides, Thor, Hesus, Cadmus and even Bremmillah of the Druids are a fraction of the gods sharing these qualities.

Similarly, we note Mises from Eqypt, Minos from Crete and Manou from India precede Moses and perform the same function. How does the age of Gemini or Taurus relate to Moses? What was his role in ushering in the age of Aries and what significance does Pisces hold to Jesus? What did Jesus say about this very topic and who does he identify?

This episode, Firesnake looks at the evidence of an astrological allegory being the foundation of Judeo-Christianity. Some would argue the Sun is the "son of God" and point to Sirius, the Three Kings and the "death" of the Sun which begins to move Northward on December 25th. That Virgo is present when the Sun rises and the Crux is present on December 22nd when the Sun "dies" demands attention.

There is overwhelming evidence showing that Christianity is a repeat of early Egyptian tradition with respect to these events. We also look closely at the astrological evidence in The Judas Gospel and review the brilliant science of the Antikythera Mechanism from 120 BC.

Articles mentioned are here.
Music thanks to Garageband.

Gags,

42 Min
11.5 MB

Bible Prophecy

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:45:00 GMT

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:

As we begin to see the effects of climate change, we also see man's inability to deal with the idea that he is not really in control. Many people will point to human activity, warmer oceans, solar flares, and all kinds of probable causes for the events we are witnessing. Volcanic activity is on the rise. Increased earthquake activity has already been recorded, and predicted for these, the last days.

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken."

Luke 21: 25-26

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.

Panic

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:32:00 GMT

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;

ââfor 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' approachesâ?.
[Source: Page 4.]

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

Gags.

47min
15MB