Month: November 2007

Combox Critique

I want to ask Jimmy’s readers for some help with an experiment over at my new blog, Old World Swine.

From time to time I would like to gather opinions on a selected piece of artwork posted on my site. This critique is not restricted to artists or art professionals, though they will be much appreciated. All that is necessary is that you give a brief, honest response – including negative stuff – and be as specific as possible. For the purposes of the online "crits" I would rather you take a pass on comments such as, "I like it, you’re very talented" or "I hate it. I hate realism". That doesn’t really help.

Other than that, I would like to get your thoughts. The usual rules of combox etiquette still apply, of course.

Thankee!

Philip Pullman Is A Liar

But at least one liberal scholar has called the trilogy a “theological masterpiece,” and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rates the film “intelligent and well-crafted entertainment.”
*VOMIT*
LINK:
‘Golden Compass’ raises religious debate

Philip_pullman_20050416
Or, if you want to quibble about the word "lie," he is a dishonest man.

Here’s why:

Pullman is the author of the His Dark Materials trilogy, which is overtly anti-Christian and the first volume of which has been made into a movie titled The Golden Compass. Naturally, the Catholic League and its head Bill Donohue are warning parents against it, and Pullman is quoted as saying the following:

"To regard it as this Donohue man has said – that I’m a militant atheist,
and my intention is to convert people – how the hell does he know that?"
he said, in an interview with Newsweek magazine.

First, note that what we have here is a vehement non-denial denial. Pullman isn’t denying that he’s a militant atheist with the intention to convert people (at least in this quote; he may have made an actual denial elsewhere, in which case he’s a flat-out liar). He’s vehemently questioning how one would know that in order to convey the impression that he is not a militant atheist out to convert people and that he’s indignant at the statement that he is one.

Because it’s a non-denial denial, one can quibble over whether it constitutes a lie, just like one can quibble over whether various non-denial denials issued by the Nixon White House (or other White Houses) were technically lies, but the clear intent here is to deceive.

But let’s answer Pullman’s question: How "the hell" does Bill Donohue know that Pullman is a militant atheist out to convert people?

Because Pullman himself has said so!

In an interview published in
the Washington Post (Feb. 19, 2001), he stated:

“’I’m trying to undermine the basis of
Christian belief,’ says Pullman. ‘Mr. Lewis [C.S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia] would think I
was doing the Devil’s work.’”

Similarly, in an interview published in the Sydney Morning
Herald (Dec. 13, 2003), Pullman stated:

“I’ve been surprised by how little
criticism I’ve got. Harry Potter’s been taking all the flak. I’m a great fan of
J.K. Rowling, but the people—mainly from America’s Bible Belt—who complain that
Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven’t got enough in
their lives. Meanwhile, I’ve been flying under the radar, saying things that
are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are
about killing God.”

And indeed they are. In the end, the heroes of the novels
actually kill God.

So Pullman is simply being dishonest when he vehemently questions how anyone could know that he is a militant atheist out to convert people. He himself has made it abundantly clear in press interviews.

This kind of transparent disingenuity really makes Pullman come across as a small and pathetic individual.

For all the protestations atheists typically make about embracing truth rather than a fairy tale, it seems Mr. Pullman leaves something to be desired in the truth department.

And why not?

If, on his view, we’re just walking bags of chemicals then why shouldn’t the bag of chemicals that is Philip Pullman not spout any string of syllables needed in order to maximize its bank account and the amount of power it has to command pleasurable sensory feedback?

New Encyclical

There’s been a rumor for some time that B16 has been working on a new encyclical on social issues . . . perhaps globalization.

However the Holy See has confirmed that a new and different encyclical will be signed–and apparently released–this Friday.

The new encyclical–Spe Salvi ("Saved by Hope" or "Saved in Hope"; from St. Paul’s phrase)–is a theological meditation on hope and a companion to B16’s first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, which was a meditation on love.

This signals that the pontiff means to do an encyclical on each of the theological virtues, so in a year or two we should look for one on the virtue of faith to complete the trilogy.

I especially look forward to what the Pope will have to say in the third one!

It is also notable that he is doing the theological virtues in the reverse order that they are normally given in. This may be a deliberate strategy on his part to play against the stereotype of him as a stern doctrinal enforcer.

What I’m particularly struck by, though, is the claim that the new encyclical will be signed and released the same day. To my mind, that’s the way it ought to be, though so often the Holy See will sign something and then not release it for a long time. I haven’t followed lately how often they’ve been doing that, but if there’s a move to sign and release the same day, that’s a good thing.

Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4, c-Myc

What are the strange alphanumeric expressions in the title of this post?

Are they stock numbers?

Perhaps the key to cornering the market?

No. They’re human genes, but they are–potentially–the solution to a raging social issue: the embryonic stem cell debate.

Writing in The Weekly Standard, Ryan Anderson–an assistant editor at First Things–states:

The stem cell wars are over. Leading scientists are telling us that they can pursue the most promising stem cell research without using–much less killing–human embryos. This breakthrough enables researchers to create human embryonic stem cells directly from adult cells. In fact, the new method may actually prove superior to embryo-destructive alternatives. This is the biggest stem cell advance since James Thomson became the first scientist to isolate embryonic stem cells, less than a decade ago.

It is a new study by Thomson himself that has caused the present stir, but this time Thomson is not alone. Accounts of independent research by two separate teams of scientists were published on November 20–one in the journal Cell and one in the journal Science–documenting the production of pluri-potent human stem cells without using embryos or eggs or cloning or any morally questionable method at all.

The new technique is so promising that on November 16, Ian Wilmut announced that he would no longer seek to clone humans. Wilmut, you may remember, is the scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep. He recently sought and received a license from the British government to attempt to clone human embryos for research purposes. Now, citing the new technique, he has abandoned his plans.

Now, I’ve head prospective ways of creating pluripotent stem cells without embryos before–and I haven’t been convinced that they were what they were said to be. The ones I’ve heard before struck me as ways of creating, or potentially creating, severely deformed human embryos and harvesting their stem cells, so I’m skeptical of new miracle procedures that will get around the problem.

I’d like to learn more about the technique that Anderson writes about, but from the description he gives of it in his Weekly Standard article, it sounds as if we may have the genuine article here.

The idea is that you take adult cells and–rather than turning them into totipotent stem cells, which could conceivably be an embryo under another name, you reprogram only select genes in them–those in the article title–and you get a pluripotent-but-not-totipotent stem cell directly from an adult cell.

If that’s what’s really happening in this technique, we may–indeed–have a solution to the stem cell wars.

If so, we have a cause for rejoicing.

READ THE WHOLE THING.

Why NOT Embryonic Research?

I heard about this new stem cell research yesterday on NPR, which broadcast a brief debate on the subject between Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical
Research, and Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of Pro-Life
Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Basically, Dr. Doerflinger takes this advance as Great News in that soon there may be no scientific (let alone moral) justification to continue controversial research on human embryonic stem cells, whereas Dr. Tipton thinks such research should continue – just in case. He sees stem cell research as a race to the finish line (his analogy) and whatever it takes to get there is fine, even though "some people" have moral problems with it.

It wasn’t so much his point of view that puzzled me (after all, you can’t expect someone who doesn’t believe in moral absolutes to behave as if they do*) but the way he defended it; So, why should we continue with controversial research, even in the face of grave moral misgivings? Because "we live in a pluralistic society".

H’okay…

Now, I’m sure Dr. Tipton could give a better, more well-rounded defense than that, if pressed, but tho whole idea (very popular, of late) that a "pluralistic society" must allow scientists to pursue "whatever works" is just freaky.  Never mind advanced ethical philosophy, has Dr. Tipton never seen Frankenstein or Them or even The Hideous Sun Demon? Hollywood had this all sussed many decades ago… there are Some Things that Man was Not Meant to Tamper With.

And, the question must be asked; if Moral Pluralism is the standard, the foundational dogma of our modern society, then what is NOT to be allowed, and why? Aren’t all ethical frameworks equally – that is subjectively – valid? Why NOT eugenics? Why NOT a genetically modified warrior race? Why NOT chemical and biological weapons?

The natural law would proscribe all these things on the basis that they are offenses against human dignity. Pluralism might find them all wrong now (because most people find them morally repugnant, even if they can’t say why), but there can be no guarantee about the future. If most people  – or even if enough of the right people – become okay with it at some point, well, we can expect these kinds of examples of the New, Improved Dynamic Morality.

"How beautious mankind is! O brave new world: That has such people in’t!".

*This touches on a recent mammoth combox debate on morality and ethics. There is this idea that one may arrive at a workable moral framework in a number of ways and that there will be little practical difference in the end. But that is not true. Toss out moral absolutes and the divergences in ethical philosophy and practice are profound and immediate.

A New Blog? Incredible!

Well, just to inform those who can’t get enough of my yammering in Jimmy’s combox, I have done gone and started my OWN BLOG.

I have had flit across my mind a number of topics lately on which I might have put together a decent post, but I haven’t. For one thing, my work recently has kept me from blogging much at all here at JA.O.. Responding in the combox comes fairly easily (Jason, for instance, might agree that it doesn’t tax my brain that much), but putting together what I consider to be even a moderately interesting original post requires more thought and time. I’m not a writer, and it can take a couple of hours for me to polish up even a fairly brief post, if I don’t want to embarrass myself.

In addition, I am very aware of the audience that Jimmy has earned here, and I personally feel that when people visit the blog of a professional apologist, they should expect a certain quality of discourse. Normally, I don’t think that my tossing in the odd, innocuous post can do much harm, but with Jimmy not posting much lately – as some have noted and Jimmy has acknowledged – the tendency for my work to change or dilute the character of the blog has been more likely. Steven Greydanus is much more capable, in terms of real theology, of contributing meatier posts (as his recent sterling series on the moral argument for Theism demonstrated) that are more in keeping with what I see as Jimmy’s main audience. I would rather see more sparse, quality posting on JA.O than have it padded out with my stuff.

And then, I have had a few ideas that I think would just be better addressed on my own blog. Not everyone is intensely interested in art, for instance, or home brewing. I fully expect to hear mainly the sound of crickets in my combox, and that’s okay.

I’m heartened to hear that Jimmy will be back to blogging at full tilt again soon, and I intend to continue haunting the combox as usual, as well as contributing the occasional post. I might also cross-pollinate a bit, duplicating some of my personal blog posts here at Jimmy’s in an act of shameless and desperate self-promotion.

Anyway, I would be delighted to see some of you JA.O regulars drop in at Old World Swine and give me a shout now and again (okay… I happen to be partial to Old World culture, and Old World Swine also happens to be an esoteric term for what is called here in Arkansas a "razorback". I’m not a huge sports fan like my brother, but I enjoy watching the Hogs play – mostly).

MILLIONTH VISITOR WILL BE INVITED FOR HOME-MADE BREAD, CHEESE & BEER!

Writers Strike

Moore_on_strikeI got an e-mail from Peter Knight, creator of Big Wolf on Campus and a striking member of the Writers Guild of America (WGA), asking if I had any thoughts about the current writers strike.

I do.

I don’t like it.

It’s likely to cause the final ten episodes of Battlestar Galactica to be held up (note the Battlestar Galactica show runner, Ron Moore, on strike in the picture).

But that dislike is a purely personal thing. What do I think about the merits of the strike?

Well, I’m not a big fan of unions–especially industry-wide unions. Industry-wide unions are basically labor monopolies, and labor monopolies are no better than business monopolies.

Every industry-wide union that I can think of has had notable pernicious effects, due to Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy, among other things. Thus the teachers’ union has poisoned American public education; the automotive workers unions have poisoned the state of Michigan, etc.

Nevertheless, I recognize that it is morally legitimate, and sometimes even necessary, for workers to organize unions and use the resulting collective bargaining power.

And if there’s anywhere that such organizing may be needed, Hollywood–with its deliberately deceptive accounting practices and ultra-exploitative mindset–is a plausible candidate.

One thing that hasn’t been communicated very effectively by the media is what the central issue of the current strike is, and that issue is finding a way for writers to get paid for their content when it is distributed via the Internet.

The studios are arguing that Internet distribution is too new and uncertain to be able to figure out what to pay the writers, which is hogwash. They’re getting ad revenue now for shows being broadcast over the Net, and it would certainly be possible to craft a formula to compensate writers on that basis.

Internet distribution has reached a crucial point, which is why the strike has hit now. Peter Knight explains:

The studios want to be able to stream shows in their entirety on the Internet laced with commercials and pay the writer nothing for it.  Zero.  Don’t believe me?  They are doing it right now.  Go to NBC.com and watch an episode of Heroes or The Office or 30 Rock.  You might also notice the commercials that play along the way.   Yet, the companies’ position is that they can’t make money off the Internet yet.   Then how did those commercials get there? Pro Bono ad sales?

Ron Moore adds additional detail (EXCERPTS):

Your television and your computer are going to become the same device within the foreseeable future. That reality is staring us in the face.

This is literally the future of my work in television and film and the work of my writers and everyone involved, because it’s all going to become transmitted to people via the internet, in some way, shape or form. Whether it’s on your cell phone, whether it’s on your lap top, or whatever other devices come along, it’s all going to go through that pipe. And either we participate in that formula or we’re completely destroyed. If you buy a book, there’s an expectation that every time you buy that book in hardback, the author gets a dollar. And if you buy it in paperback, he probably gets a dollar to. Well, you have a situation where suddenly, he doesn’t get paid anything if you buy the paperback, then guess what? Then they’re only going to sell paperbacks. And that will happen with us too.

So, bottom line, what do I think of the strike?

Well, it’s unpleasant and I don’t like it, but at bottom I think that the worker is worth his wages and Hollywood needs to find a way to compensate writers for material streamed over the Internet. Trying to dither about how confusing the Internet is as part of a squeeze play to reduce the compensation writers are getting is simply disingenuous.

Which is what Hollywood does best.

After all, it’s all about play acting, isn’t it?

I guess not all of the actors are the ones in front of the cameras. Some are wearing suits in the back office.

Meanwhile, how will the strike affect Battlestar Galactica?